KU 



REMARKS.- -This is a good -.pccies. ami <|iutc distinct from " Argyll- Apple " I/-.', liiierru, F.v.M.). which 

 has a similar bark and timber and which characteristics often led Karon von Mueller l<> express a doubt whether 

 the two tr ta were not one and the same species (vide " Eucalyptographia " under /.'. piili-rritlt'iita). The two differ 

 distinctly in foliage and fruits. It has little or no affinity with / ana, whn h tree has a pale-coloured timber, 



and a " Hox " bark and hemispherical fruits. This latter spci LI r.anni VOB Mm Her. working on herbarium 



material, confounded with the " Victorian A]>ple " (/-'. Stitarliana), but his In-quciii reieren. < to the stringy-bark and 

 red coloured timber of " Argyle Apple " (/-.. t hit-tea) shows coiicluMvclv that /.'. l!n<tf;i'xi<iii<i cou'd hardly have been 

 known to him in the field. A. \V. llowitt's /-.'. f>ul;-fnilenta, var. luii<fi>lata, we regard as an aberrant form of 

 /.'. Stiuirliana. in which the lanceolate form of leaf is less predominant although cordate leaves also occur on mature 

 tree.-, along with flowers and fruits in the axils. The timber, bark, and mllon p almost identical with the 



tvpe /.'. Stitarliana. It has little connection with the lanceolate form of the " Argyle \pple " (/:". cinerea F.v.M.) 

 ol New South Wales, as that species has consistently three flowers in the axils, whilst llowitt's tree has almost 

 uniformly seven a fact that appears to ha\e been overlooked by those who have synonymised it with the " Argyle 

 Apple " (/;'. cinerea, F.v.M.). Dr. Ilowitt who knew both trees well in the field, and discussed them with the late 

 Baron von Mueller, was in accord with us in our classification of /.'. Sliiarliniiii and /.'. Uridgesiana. 



ESSENTIAL OIL. We are indebted to Dr. A. W. Howitt, F.G.S., for 

 the material of this species for distillation. 



The leaves and terminal branchlets had been collected as for commercal 

 distillation, and \\vre sent from Melbourne, Victoria, in April, 1898. The yield 

 of oil was 0-4 per cent. The crude oil was red in colour, and had an odour 

 resembling the cineol-pinene oils generally. Phellandrene could not be detected, 

 but pinene was present. The amount of ester was somewhat large, resembling 

 in this respect the oils obtained from E. cinerea and allied species. The oil 

 was rich in cineol, and a determination by the phosphoric acid method (O.M.) 

 gave 53 per cent, of that constituent in the crude oil. The specific gravity 

 of the crude oil = 0-916; and optical rotation D + 4-8; refractive index 

 at 20 = 1-4652. The saponincation number for the esters and free acid was 

 14-2. The crude oil was soluble in i volumes 70 per cent, alcohol. 



49. Eucalyptus Stuartiana, var. cordata. 



(R.T.B. & H.G.S., in Euc. and their Ess. Oils, ist Edit., 1902.) 

 (Syn. /:. fiulverulenta, var. l.mceolata, A.W.H.) 



Systematic. A small tree, 40 to 50 feet high, with a red, stringy bark. 

 Leaves glaucous, opposite, sessile, cordate to ovate, or alternate, ovate-lanceolate, 

 lanceolate, 3 to 4 inches long, i to 2 inches wide ; venation well marked, lateral 

 veins oblique, spreading, intramarginal vein well removed from the edge in the 

 ovate leaves. Peduncles axillary, terete, 6 lines long, with from five to eight 

 flowers in the umbel. Calyx conical; operculum hemispherical, acuminate. 



Fruit. Sessile, top-shaped; rim thick, convex; 

 valves slightly exserted; 3 lines in diameter. 



Habitat. Ovens district, Moe, and many other localities in 

 Victoria. 



REMARKS. This tree was first recorded under the above synonym in A.A.A.S., 1898, p. 517, by 

 Dr. A. W. Howjtt, to whom we are indebted for the herbarium material. The number of flowers in the umbel and 

 the predominance of lanceolate leaves connect it, in our opinion, more closely with the " Apple," E. Stuartiana, 

 K v M. of Victoria, than the " Argyle Apple," E. cinerea, F.v.M., of New South Wales, which has consistently 

 3 -flowered peduncles and only rarely lanceolate leaves. E. pulverulenta is quite a different tree from any of the above, 

 and has no affinity with Dr. Howitt 's variety. Mueller's confounding E. cinerea with E. pulverulenta probably misled 

 Dr. Howitt. 



