51 



DESCRIPTION. 



XLIX. E. micpotheca, F.v.l 



Described in Jonni. I.iini. Soc, iii, 87 (1858), in Latin, wliich may l)e translated as 

 follows : — 



A tree with slender nearly terete branches. Leaves alternate, sh')rtly petiolate, linear-lanceolate 

 subfalcate, somewhat acute, dark and without, visible oil-glands, very thinly veined, the marginal vein 

 close to the edge. Umbels axillary, solitai-y or paniculate, few-ttoweied, the peduncles angnlar. Fruits 

 small, semi-ovate, not ribbed, shortly pedicellate, 3- to 4-cell^d, the valves iiignrte 1 below the margin and 

 hardly exserted. Fertile seeds l)lacki.sh, smooth, not winged. Hah. — Not rare in the fertile plains of 

 Tropical Australia. Tree of ni'ddle size with a dirty brownish-whiie bark full of wrinkles and cracks, 

 persistent on the trunk, deciduous on the upper branches, leaving them ashy-white. Leaves rather thin, 

 2-5" long, 4-8" broad. Panicle shorter than the leaves, the peduncles variable in length. Fruits, 1^ 

 to 2'" long ; seeds nearly §'" long, peltnte- or truncate ovate. 



It Avas afterwards descril)ed in English by Bentham in JB.FL iii, 223 as 

 .£". brachfipoda, Ttircz., though with some confusion witli E. rudis, Endl., as will 

 he explained presently. IMueller subsequently figured and described the species in 

 the '' Eucalyptographia." 



Notes Supplementary to the Description. 



Mueller [Eucalyptogi-aphla) figures E. mlcrotheca with a non-dilated stigma, 

 and draws attention to this as a character, but I have seen quite a number of flowers 

 of this species with a more or less dilated stigma, so that this supposed character 

 falls to the si'ound. 



SYNONYM. 



E. brevifolia, E.v.M., Joitm. Lmn. Soc, iii, 84 (185S). 



Mueller in " Eucalyptographia " agrees with Bentham {B.FL iii, 223) that 

 E. brer/folia is a synonym of E. microtheca. It is the older name and would have 

 replaced E. microtheca had not there been an earlier E. breoifolia. 



E. brachypoda, Turcz., not a Synonym. 



Bentliam {B.FL iii, ii'i) unites E. microtheca with E. brachypoda ; but as already pointed out in 

 Fra/iii., xi, 14, Drumniond's plant iv, 73, belongs to the southern regions of Western Australia, only his 

 subsequent collection-*, pirticularly the sixth, bringing plants from the neighbourhood of the Murchison 

 Rivf-r. His plant in the Melbourne collection is also not in fruit; but the flowering specimen, to which 

 Turczaninow's description is well applicable, agrees with E. rudis. — (^Eihcalyptnijraphia, under E. microtheca.) 



I have examined Drumniond's iv, 73, and agree with Mueller in referring it 

 to E. rudis, so that E. brachijpoda, Turcz., is not a synonym of E. microtheca, F.v.M. 



A specimen of Mueller's " Eucalyptus micrtoheca, ferd Mueller, Victoria 

 River " (doubtless a co-typo), named by Bentham E. brachypoda, Tiu'cz., for the 

 Flora Australiensis, was presented to me by Kew, and is the species under con- 

 sideration, so that Bentham has placed two species under E. brachypoda, 



H 



