174 



He then makes the deduction — 



E. .mimonophloia and E. oleosa being apparently the same tree in dififerent forms of growth, it is 

 probable that the latter is a stage in the slow and permanent degeneration of the larger tree. 



In the Abstract of Proceedings of the Society, 3rd May, 1906, p. iv, Mr. Smith 

 also says : — 



From botanical and chemical evidence it is assumed that E. salmonophluia of Western Australia 

 and E. oleosa of New South Wales belong to the same species. 



Now all this is an interesting contribution to the data which are being 

 collected in regard to Eucalyptus affinities, and which I hope to bring together and 

 analyse in the final Part of this work, but E oleosa and E. salmonophloia are not 

 so closely related as Mr. Smith's statements would lead most people to think. 



I would point out that E. oleosa and E. salmonophloia have differences of an 

 important character. Some differences have been pointed out by Mueller, and 

 following are more or less important : — 



Size 



Bark 



Timber 

 Juvenile leaves 



Mature leaves 

 Buds ... 

 Anthers 



Fruits ... 



E. oleosa. 



A variable species. 



Shrub or small tree. 



Rough on butt, sometimes very rough 



Reddish-brown. 



Usually broad, rarely narrow, but never 

 as narrow as those of E. salmono 

 phloia. Glaucous on both sides. 



Glaucous to glalirous. 



Usually with a far longer operculum 



than salmonophloin . 

 Large, opening widely, but more at the 



front, than does salmonophloia 



Gland at the back large. 



E. salmonophloia. 



Varies very little, so far as we know. 

 Large tree. 

 Smooth. 



Red, paler than E. oleosa. 

 Narrow lanceolate, shining on both 

 sides. 



Narrower than oleosa. Yellowish 

 green. 



Large, opening widely to the base. 

 Gland at top small. A broader 

 anther than oleosa, nearer hemi- 

 phloia than oleosa. 



Smaller and more flat-topped than 



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



This is a smooth, green-barked, fluted tree shaped like a gigantic gimlet, and 

 quite different in appearance to any other Eucalypt that I have seen. The "egg-in- 

 egg-cup " buds of E. salubris resemble the appearance sometimes seen in E. oleosa. 



I will deal with affinities when I deal with E salubris. 



3. With E. leptopoda, Benth. 



The narrow lanceolate foliage and the shape of the fruit of this species at 

 once separate it from E. oleosa. I will make further remarks when I describe 

 E. leptopoda. 



4. With E. deeipiens, Endl. 



Comparison of Plate 03, Part XIV, and Plate 65 of the present Part shows 

 that the similarity is not great. The leaves of E. deeipiens are broader as a rule, 



