51 



BOTANICAL NOTES. 



By L. Bodway. 

 (Read June Uth, 1894J 



In November, 1886, Mr. T. B. Moore drew our attention to 

 what he considered a new Eucalypt that he had found grow- 

 ing on the sub-alpine range between New Norfolk and the 

 Huon district. He described it, and named it after our 

 greatly esteemed friend Baron Von Mueller. 



The Baron had already had an opportunity of examining- 

 the plant, having found it some years previously towards the 

 summit of Mount Field east. He did not consider it distinct, 

 but thought it probably a lowland form, of E. vernicosa, H. 



The tree has probably a wide sub-alpine distribution in 

 south-western Tasmania, as besides meeting with it in 

 quantity in both localities named, I have found it extensively 

 dispersed round the southern slope of Mount Wellington at 

 about 2,000ft. elevation, where it can be seen in quantity in 

 the region of the Springs Track to the Two Bridges and 

 Forked Creek Bivulets, where it forms the principal timber. 



I also have an undoubted specimen of this plant, but with 

 rather different opercula, gathered by Mr. Wm. Fitzgerald on 

 Mount G-iekie. 



The tree has probably been overlooked in many localities. 

 It grows with and is very like E. urnigera, H, with which I have 

 no doubt it has been confounded. The two trees can hardly 

 be distinguished when seen together, and with E. muelleri the 

 branches are very tough, so that it is most unusual to pick up 

 broken limbs with inflorescence. With E. urnigera on the con- 

 trary the wood is brittle, so that at this time of the year the 

 ground in such a forest would be comparatively strewn with its 

 flowers. Another cause of the overlooking of E. muelleri by bota- 

 nists is that its buds and fruit are practically exactly similar 

 to those of E. coceifera, Hh., and till one was fortunate enough 

 to secure flowers and detect the parallel anther-cells the dis- 

 tinctness would not suggest itself. Whatever the cause may be 

 this tree, which is most distinct from any eucalypt but E. 

 vernicosa, grows in quantity by the side of the track below 

 the Springs, attains a height of 2O0ft., and yet has barely 

 attained the dignity of a. name. 



It remains still a matter of opinion whether the tree should 

 be considered specifically distinct from E. vernicosa, H. Its 

 close relationship is undeniable, but the fact that this tree 

 appears to die out at a sub-alpine altitude, and the dwarf 



