es 



AFFINITIES. 



1. With E. Perriniana F.v.M. 



R<?]ated to Eucalyptus qamojihyUa, E. orhiloKa, and E. Perriniana. The latter (last), however, is 

 from cold mountain regions of Tasmania, and its leaves, free from each other only in the early stage of 

 the voung plants, become connate when the trees attain some height, they then resemble those of 

 E. Risdoni (probably the Euc. perjoliala of Desfontaincs), although the species belongs to the series of 

 Parallelantherse. (Original description.) 



For E. Perriniana see Part XXYI and Plate 108. AJl the leaves of that species 

 are not isoblastic ; a lanceolate leaf is figxired at Id, Plate 108. The leaves of 

 E. Kruseana are much smaller, and, so far as we know, the jiivenDe leaves are 

 neither connate nor perfoliate. E. Perriniana is a larger plant (though not very 

 large), with flowers apparently always in threes, and with larger, hemispherical fruits. 



2. With E. gamophijUa F.v.M. 



E. gamophylla is likewise separated from the present new species by the concrescently paired leaves; 

 moteover its pedicels are almost obliterated, the fruit-bearing calyces are much longer than broad, bearing 

 the valvules at a higher insertion. (Original description.) 



For E. gamapJiylla see Part XXXV, with Plate 147. This again is a perfoliate 

 species, succeeded by ra"rower lanceolate leaves ; the leaves are not orbicular. The 

 inflorescence is more paniculate and the fruits more cylindroid. while it is a tree vielding 

 timber at least 8 inches in diameter. 



3. With E. orbifolia F.xM. 



The diSerences of E. orbifoUa are ob\-ious, consisting in scattered stalked leaves, larger flowers, 

 semiglobular calyx-tube, proportionately longer operculum and exserted fruit valvules. (Original 

 description.) 



For E. orhifolia let us turn to Part XYII, with Plate 74. We know but little 

 of the species, but it is sufficient to say that they are very different. 



Folio-wing is an addendum I gave to my description of E. Morrisoni : — 



A few additional notes will be found in square brackets. The general question 

 of the comparative morphology of the leaves of all species remains to be presented 

 when the subject of Morphology is reached. 



" E. Morrisoni belongs to the somewhat heterogeneous group (as regards 

 affinities) of species with perfoliate or other^vise strictly opposite (sessile) leaves in the 

 mature stage. 



It would appear from B.Fl. iii, 187, that Eentham did not attach much importance 

 to shape of sucker or juvenile leaves. 



Nevertheless, he used these young leaves to some extent for classification pur- 

 poses, e.g., " Leaves in the young saplings of many species and perhaps all in some 

 species " [my italic^] " horizontal, opposite, sessile and cordate." (B.Fl. iii, 185.) 



