BY J. H. MAIDEN, I.S.O., F.R.S. 87 



In his paper "Notes on Eucalyptus Risdoni Hooker," 

 by L. Rodway, this Journal, 1910, p. 367, the species or 

 variety hyjjericifolia is dealt with. Mr. Rodway pro'Vision- 

 ally refers 4 forms (a, b, c, d,) to it, and figures form c 

 (upper portion of Plate xi.) and form d (lower portion of 

 Plate xii.) together with first year seedling of for d 

 (upper portion of Plate xii.) second year seedling of form 

 d (lower portion of Plate x.), third year seedling of form 

 d (upper portion of Plate x.). 



In his 1917 paper on "Tasmanian Eucalypts," p. 13, 

 he states that E . liypericif olia is "Cabbage Gum," and that 

 the juvenile leaves differ from, those of E . Risdoni in being 

 inore lanceolate and long. 



At one time I thoiught that the narrow leaved forms 

 of E. Risdoni (var. elata and var. hy per icif olia) could be 

 combined a^s one narrow-leaved form., but Kodway, at p. 

 368 of his 1910 paper, shows that this cannot be safely 

 done in the present state of our knowledge. Some day a 

 leisured Tasma^nian botanist, with adequate field and 

 horticultural opportunities, may collect large series of 

 specimens, connect them with their seedlings in all stages, 

 and work out the phylogeny of thisi interesting little 

 group. 



10. E. ruhida Deane and. Maiden. 



See C.R. Part xxvi., the Tasmanian references at p. 120. 



From the Ouse to the Deei I fre.quently came across 

 this species, closely approximating to the type. 



11. E. unialata Baker and Smith, this Journ 



176, with a Plate (1912). Syn. 1. E. viminalis Labill., 



var. macrocarpa Rodway; 2. E. antipolitensis Trabut, 



Bull, de la Stat, de Re.ch. Forest du N. de VAfr. i., 151, 



with pi. XV. his (1917). 



This is referred tO' as E. viminalis var. macrocarpa by 

 Rodway in "The Tasmanian Flora," p. 57 (1903), where it 

 i,^ first suggested as. a cross between E globulus and E . 

 vrminalis. 



In this Journ. p. 29 (1914) I suspended- my judgment 

 as to its systematic position until I could see the trees 

 growing naturally. Rodway, this Journ. p. 17 (1917), 

 again refers tO' the tree. 



In February, 19l8, under Mr. Rodway's guidance, I 

 observed a number of the trees in the Domain at Hobart. 

 I may say that I had long been satisfied that the trees were 

 different from E. viminalis and E. glohuhis, but i had 

 understood that they had only been found in a plantation, 



