161 



AFFINITIES. 



Bentliam (B.Fl. iii, 213) says :— 



Until the fruit is known, the precise allinities of this species cannot be determined. It is very 

 unlike any other one I have seen. 



1. With E. polijanthemos, Schauer. 



la B.Fl. iii, 213, Beutham. placed B. nligantha (provisionally, of course) 

 between E. pruinosa and E. polijanthemos. 



Mueller's remarks in regard to E. poli/andiemoshave already been quoted. 



E. pohjmithemos is figured at Plates 58 and 59, and the exceptionally large 

 juvenile foliage of that species may, as regards herbarium specimens, remind one of 

 E. oliganthn ; but, as a rule, both the juvenile and mature foliage of E poly ant hemos 

 are much smaller than those of E. oligantha. The IVuits of E. polijanthemos are 

 smaller and of a different shape, while the anthers of the tsvo species are very different. 

 The former is confined to New South Wales and Victoria ; the latter is a tropical 

 species. 



2. Witli E. pruinosa, Schauer. 



Bentliam has implied the affinity. There is certainly some affinity. As 

 regards the anthers, they are not very dissimilar. 



The foliage of E. pruinosa is sessile, while that of E. oligantha has long 

 petioles. The fruits of E. pruinosa are not urceolate or only very slightly so ; the 

 opercula of the buds are more conical. 



We know so little about E. oligantha as regards its size (fruticose, as first 

 described), habit, bark, timber, and habitat, that one is restricted in making 

 comparisons with other species. 



3. With E. populifolia, Hook, (see Plate 48). 



There is affinity in the young foliage and in the anthers, but the fruits are 

 much smaller, and the mature foliage is smaller, narrower, and not shiny ; still there 

 is undoubtedly affinity between the two species. 



4. With E. alba, Reinw. 



This is another tropical large-leaved species, and the two undoubtedly 

 resemble each other in some respects. As regards anthers, however, it is very 

 different to E. alba, which has a long narrow anther (with gland at back not showing 

 at front) belonging to the incrassata group. 



I prefer to postpone comparison of these two species until I figure E. alba, 



5. 6, 7. With E. hemiphloia, F.v.M., &c. 



Some of the species to which it is closely allied anthereally, are E. hem,iphloia, 

 F.V.M., E. odorata, Behr, and E. Thozotiana, F.v.M. (see Part XI), but the affinities 

 do not otherwise appear to be close. There is also some tendency in the fruils of 

 E. hemiphloia to be urceolate. The buds are very different. The same remark may 

 be made as regards the fruits of jF. Thozeliana, but both juvenile and mature leaves 

 of that s})ecies are narrow. 



