173 



The largest specimen of No. 18G, and the only one I have ever seen with an 

 operculum (all other specimens having only leaves and flowers), is in the Cambridge 

 Herbarium, and I took a drawing of it. It shows a twig both angular and round. 

 The anthers are those of E. oleosa, and the long tapering calyx is that of var. glauca. 

 The leaves and also the "paint brush" arrangement of the stamens are also those 

 of E. oleosa. 



There is a specimen of No. 186 in the Melbourne Herbarium labelled 

 " E. decurva." The names E. uncinatn, Turcz., var. rostrata, Benth., and E. decurva, 

 Beiith. non F.v. M., are both synonyms of E. oleosa, var. glauca. 



SouTE Australia. 

 Sandhills east of Ooldea, also at Ooldea, Transcontinental Railway Survey, 

 Port Augusta, S.A., to Kalgoorlie, Western Australia (Hem-y Deane). 



AFFINITIES. 



Mueller {Eiicalyptographia) stated that the precise relation of the following to 

 E. oleosa is not yet clearly understood, viz., the Morrel [E. longlcornis), the Salmon- 

 barked Eucalypt {E. salmonophlola), the Gimlet- wood or Fluted Eucalypt {E. 

 salubrls), besides E. leptopoda and E. decipiens. We know more about these 

 species now; but since Mueller published his note as he did, it may be convenient 

 to take references to them seriatim. I have already dealt with E. longicornis 

 {oleosa, var. longicornis). 



1. With E. salmonophloia, F.v.M. 



The characters (oi'E. longicornis) which separate it from E.salraonoj)hIoia are, the persistent bark, 

 the longer and more pointed operculum, the longer style, the larger fruit. (Mueller, Fraym. ii, 14, 

 description of E. longicornis). 



Mueller further says : — 



The nearest affinity of the Salmon barked Eucalypt is to E. oleosa, but it differs in its entirely 

 smooth bark, the smaller Hovvers and fruits, and the shorter and also blunter lid of the calyx. (" Forest 

 Resources of Western Australia," p. 13.) 



Diels and Pritzel (Engler's Jahrh., xxxv, 413, 1904) consider that E. salmon- 

 ophloia is more closely related to E. gracilis than to E. oleosa. 



Mr. H. G. Smith {Proc. Roy. Soc. JY.S. W., xxxi.\, 2.5) says, "Mr. R. T. Baker . . . informed 

 me that on botanical evidence of buds, fruit, leaves, and timber, he could distinguish no dift'tM riice between 

 E. salmonophloia of Western Aus'ralia and E. oleosa of this State." 



Again . . . " the leaves of £■. »a?moMo;jAZoia were forwarded to tin's Museum for investigation, 

 and the oil of this species was found to consist of the .same constituents as had previously been t)btained 

 from E. oleosa, and allowing for rather more pineno in the oil of E. salmonophloia practically no difference 

 could be determined between the oils of these two species." 



Then Mr. Smith deals with the constituents of the barks of tlie two species, 

 although he points out that they vary considerably in thickness. 



