DESCRIPTION. 



LVIII. E. leucoxylon, F.vJ 



Mueller described this species in the following words : — Arboreous : 



Leaves. — Alternate, somewhat shining, narrow lanceolate, subfalcate, tapering into a long 

 uncinate acumen, veined and furnished with pellucid dots ; umbels axillary, generally three-flowered, with 

 a thin peduncle. 



Lid. — Conico-hemispherical, acuminate. 



Tube of the Calyx. — Semiovate, somewhat longer than the lid. 



Fruits. — Semiovate, hardly contracted at the orifice ; the valves of the capsule inclosed. 



Seeds. — Blackish clathrate. 



In grassy plains, from the Avoca to St. Vincent's and Spencer's Gulf. 



This is the " White Gum Tree " of the South Australian Colonists. {Trans. Victorian Insi.,\,Zi 

 [1855].) 



In the following year (1856) Miquel redescribed it, on Mueller's behalf, as 

 follows : — 



9. Eucalyptus Ipucoxylvn Ferd. Milller ; ramulis teretiusculis, foliis elongato-lanoeolatis sursum 

 angustatis, apiculo incurvo terminatis coriaceis nitidulis penniveniis subreticulatisque, pedunculis axillaribus 

 tri-raro quinque-floris petiolo brevioribus pedicellos aequantihus, floribns 2 lateralibus patentibus, calyce 

 operculoque rugulosis, hoc depresso-hemisphaerico subulato-attenuato aequilongo. (F. Miiller, Herb, et 

 adnot.) 



Fere ubique in planitiebus locisque montosis, White Gum tree incolarum. 



Arbor excelsa, rarius arbuscula 10-12 pedalis (in montium cacuminibus). Rami juniores rubelli, 

 saepe pruinosi ; folia obtuse viridia, juniora glauca. " Truncus albus sublaevis, passim striis fuscis." 

 (Dr. Behr. ) Filamenta luteoalbida, antherae fuscae. Variat floribus duplo majoribu.s. (Miq. in 

 Ned. Kruidk. Arch., iv, 127 [1856].) 



It was then described (in Latin, of course) in Fragm. ii, 60 (1800), with 

 E. cosmophijlla, P.M., as a synonym (which seems strange to us now), and the 

 " White Gum " and " Ironbark " combined as heretofore. 



Then Bentham {B.Fl. iii, 209) redescribed E. leucoxylon, and his description 

 can stand if Mueller's reference to the bark, the synonym E. sklei'oxulon, and the 

 varieties pullois and minor be omitted. 



We now come to Mueller's figure and description of E. leucoxtjlon in the 

 " Eucalyptographia," and here, again, we must delete (as synonyms) the references 

 to E. sideroxylon and " Ironbark." The figures of the mature fruits of E. leucoxylon 

 are not characteristic. 



The late Rev. Dr. Woolls, in his " Note on Eucalyptus leucoxylon, P.v.M. 

 {Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.TF., i [2ndser.], 859 [18S6]), first made clear the confusion of 

 the two species. Before that date he had explained his views to me, verbally and 

 in writing, and probably in writing to Xaudin and others, for Naudin in 1883 refers 

 to his views. In my " Forest Flora of New South Wales," Part xiii, plate 4<9 (1903), 

 I give figures which help to clear up the confusion. 



