22 



DESCRIPTION. 



CC XXVII. E. Drummondii Bentham. 



In B.Fl. iii, 237 (1866). 



Leaves from ovate oblong to lanceolate, obtuse or acuminate, under 3 inches long, very thick, with 

 very fine close parallel veins, very diverging or almost transverse, but scarcely conspicuous, the intra- 

 marginal one close to the edge. Peduncles axillary or lateral, J to 1| inches long, terete or nearly so, each 

 bearing an umbel of 3 to 6 rather large flowers on terete pedicels often J inch long. Calyx-tube broadly 

 hemispherical, hard and smooth, 4 to 5 lines diameter. Operculum conical, rather broader and consider- 

 ably longer than the calyx-tube. Stamens about | inch long, inflected in the bud; anthers rather small, 

 ovate, with distinct parallel cells. Dish very broad, nearly flat, forming a prominent ring round the ovary, 

 of which the obtusely conical centre protrudes about 1 or 1^- lines above the disk at the time of flowering. 

 Fruit unknown. 



The fruit was unknown to Bentham when he described E. Drummondii in 

 B.Fl. iii, 237, and apparently Mueller only saw the young fruits. They will be found 

 at fig. 7, Plate 74. Juvenile foliage petiolate, ovate, intramarginal vein close to edge 

 (specimens of 0. H. Sargent, near York, W.A.), but neither it nor the anthers figured 

 until fig.s. 10-12, Plate 171, -of the present part. 



SYNONYM. 



E. Oldfieklii F.v.M., var. Drummondii Maiden, at Part XVII, p. 223, of the 

 present work. 



Muellei', in " Eucalyptographia," under E. Oldfiddii, uses the following words : — 



So far as I can judge from Drummond's specimen No. 8G, no other discrepancies of the latter (as 

 regards E. Oldfieldii) exist than the smaller size of the leaves, flowers and young fruits, and the comparatively 

 greater length of the flower stalks and stalklots, but such differences are not in every case of specific value, 

 and aa the bud and ripe fruit remained hitherto unknown, the final settling of this question is not yet 

 possible. If E. Drummondii should prove a mere variety, as seems likely .... 



Mueller continued to hold the opinion that E. Drummondii was not distinct from 

 E. Oldfieldii, for he omitted it from his Census. I.uehmann {Proc. Aust. Assoc. Adv. 

 Science, vii, 532, 1898) writes : " E. Drmmnondii seems a variety of this {E. Oldfieldii), 

 being smaller in all its parts." 



