21 



Miquel lias made the further mistake of synonymising his plant with 

 E. dealbata, A. Cunn. 



The position therefore is this : Mueller's sjiecimens from Booker (Broken) 

 River and from Clairvillage (Clare) to m. (Mount) Remarkable (South Australia) 

 were sent to Miquel, who named them E. alhens, thinking he was referring them to 

 E. pallens, DC, which was a mistake. Referring them to E. dealbata, A. Cunn., 

 is another mistake. This was in 1856. 



In 186G, adopting Mueller's views at that time, Benthara (B.Fl , iii, 219) 

 accepted the name E. albens, Miq. 



In 1880 Mueller, in " Eucalyptogra2)hia," Fifth Decade, specifically 

 suppresses E. albens, placing it under E. he))iiphloia, which opinion he maintained 

 in his " First Census " (1882) and his " Second Census " (1889). He maintained 

 that view to the close of his life, and, having given special attention to the matter, 

 both in tlie herbarium and in the field, I think it is impossible to justify their 

 separation as distinct species. 



Is E. hemiphloia F.v.M., conspecific with E. albens, Miq. ? 



I have just stated that I do not think they can be separated. At the same 

 time, I readily admit that they are often different in appearance, chiefly because of 

 the greater glaucousness of var. albens, but this character and also that of habit of 

 tree, shape and size of fruit, are not constant, breaking down when carefully 

 looked into. The composition of the oils of the two forms is the same (Baker and 

 Smith), but these authors state that " in the field the two trees are never 

 confounded," which begs the question. 



As regards the two forms, Mueller, who established them, says : 



E. albens can be distinguished from tlie typical E. hemiphloia only in pei'haps more extensively 

 persistent bark, in paler dull foliage and chalky white bloom on the panicles, and in calyces somewhat 

 larger and tapering more gradually into a thicker stalklet. — (" Eucalyptographia," under E. heniiphlvia). 



Attention may be invited the following specimens which in my view break 

 down the line of demarcation between E. hemiphloia and E. albens. See also some 

 notes under " Range." 



(a) "Large-leaved Box"; bushmen call the tree, which is not plentiful, 

 ''Black Box," because of its dark bark. Bendigo, also Rush worth, Victoria (J. 

 Blackburne.) These specimens closely resemble the normal hemiphloia ; the fruits 

 are those of the type, as fig. 'id, plate 50, shows. At the same time the angularity 

 of the buds is reminiscent of var. albens, but the fruits are smaller, and have 

 no glaucousness, like var. albens. 



(b) Young, N.S.W. (W. W. Froggatt). Specimens glaucous, and if the fruits 

 were of larger size they would be named var. albens without question, but, although 

 the Iruits are not quite ripe, it does not appear that they will be larger than 

 E. hemiphloia typica. 



