81 



A correspondent in that group writes to me : — 

 Eucalypl us Kawliniana is common in Neu Pommern, though not in the Ralum district, where I live. It grow 

 especially on the rivers, from the coast to the mountains, and is so common in the forests that two sawmills have been 

 started especially for this timber. The timber is not so hai-d as the Australian Eucalyptus, but still a good, useful timber. 



I know of no locality for the species other than that indicated in this paper. (^Proceedings 

 U.S. National Museum, Vol. xxvi, No. 1.327.) 



Then we have a note : — 



Eucalyptus multiflorn, Rich, sp. nov., p. 55-1: (Wilkes' Exped.). 



Hab. near Caldera, Mindanao, one of ths Philippine Islands. One of the few species of Eucalyptus 

 found out of Australia, and not as yet rediscovered.* It has been reduced by Maiden to Hucalyplus 

 Naudiniana, F. Miill. (PI. 2). {Phil. Journ. of Science, iii, 83, June, 1908.) 



A photograph of Rich's type specimen is given. 



RANGE. 



The Philippine Islands and New Britain (Neu Pommern). The locality New 

 Ireland in the original description is wrong, as I have pointed out. It would be 

 desirable to look out for it also in the Caroline Islands, northern New Guinea, and 

 the Solomons. 



Under E. alba {Eiicalyptographia) Mueller records " an Eucalyptus -like 

 tree has recently been recorded from New Ireland (Britain) by the Bev. Mr. Brown 

 as forming forests in that island." This Eucalypt is E, Naudiniana, so Mr. (now 

 Dr.) Brown tells me. 



AFFINITIES. 



It is not easy to state the afl&nity of this species. Its anthers are somewhat 

 anomalous. In most cases, in this species, the anther-cells are not confluent. At 

 the same time, as regards shape, it is undoubtedly Renantherous, As regards 

 foliage, it is markedly eugenioid. 



It is one of the very few extra- Australian species, but it is not closely related 

 to any of them. Indeed, its close affinities to any species are not apparent. 



Looking at its lai'ge, homogeneous timber and its u.mbrageous foliage, it is 

 obviously the product of good soil and favourable cultural conditions, — plenty of 

 moisture and adequate shelter. 



1. With E. Cloeziana, E.v.M. 



Both species have dense panicles of flowers Avhich have a general resemblance. 

 But otherwise their relations are not close, either in anthers or fruits, nor, as far as 

 I can see, in other respects. 



2. With E. mierocorys, F.v.M. 



The leaves in both species are thin ; those of E. mierocorys arc much 

 narrower. The anthers are much the same, but the fruits arc very different. 



3. With E. saligna, Sm. 



The two species resemble each other in bark and timber. In foliage and 

 other respects there is less similarity. 



* Mr. C. B. Robinson, of the Bureau of Science, Manila, has just sent me leafy twigs collected by Dr. Copelaud at 

 Mindanao, which beyond reasonable doubt appears to belong to this species. 



D 



