226 



3. E. gomphocephala, DC. 



I have not dealt with tliis species yet, but it is figured in tlie "Eucalypto- 

 graphia " and meantime I will remark that the affinities of the two species are 

 remote. 



4. E. pachyloma, Benth. 



Benthani placed it next to this species, from which it is decisively distinguished by longer leaf- 

 stalks, by broader leaves with more divergent veins, shorter .stamens, anthers of different structure, 

 somewhat larger, more depressed fruits M'ith prominent margin, longer valves, protruding pyramidally 

 from a central groove of the vertex, and also narrower sterile seeds. (Mueller in " Eucalyptographia," 

 under E. OMfipUii.) 



E. pachyloma is figured at Nos. 9 and 10 of Plate 36 under E. dlversifolia, 

 Bonpl. As my recent trip to Western Australia has given me an opportunity of 

 sUxdymg E. 2)(''Chi/l 'ma in its type locality, I will postpone further remarks con- 

 cerning it until such time as I can publish my observations. 



5. E. inerassata, Labill. 



In the shape of its anthers E. Ohlfi^ldii agrees almost with that \ariety of E. inerassata, in which 

 they are shortened to a nearly roundish form ; but still both these species are very different from the 

 Renanthene, although they offer an approach to the Micranthera;. (Mueller, " Eucalyptographia," under 

 E. Oldfiddii.) 



This is another species referred to by Mueller in speaking of E. Oldfieldii. 

 He compares E. Oldfieldii with that variety of E. Oldfieldii " in which they (the 

 anthers) are shortened to a nearly roundish form." Perhaps he is alluding to the 

 same plant when in " Eucalyptographia," under E. inerassata, he says : " Some 

 of the anthers occasionally verging to a globular-cordate form ; the connective 

 conspicuously glandular-turgid at the back." So far as I know, Mueller has not 

 indicated the plant referred to, and we therefore cannot follow up the comparison. 



As regards affinities of the two species, reference to the figures in Part IV of 

 the present work shows that they are not close. 



6. With E. cosmophylla, F.v.M. 



This is another large fruited species, and there is some superficial resemblance 

 in herbarium specimens. The buds may resemble each other a good deal, and the 

 rim of the fruits of E. cosmophylla has a certain amount of sculpture, but it is not 

 depressed as are those of E. Oldfieldii. 



7. With E. macrorrhyncha, F.v.M. 



This species and var. Drtimmondii have fruits which sometimes resemble 

 each other a good deal. For example, compare fig. 7, Plate 74 of the present Part, 

 with 116, Sc and other figures of Plate 39 of Part VIII. But variety Dmmmondii 

 has longer pedicels, the buds, anthers, and leaves are different. E. macrorrhyncha 

 also is a large Stringy bark. 



8 and 9. With E. resinifera, Sm., and E. punctata, DC. 



When these two species arc figured, it will be seen that both have large fruited 

 forms, which in herbarium specimens undoubtedly show resemblance to some forms 

 of E Oldfieldii. I am referring more particularly to figs. 4& and 7 of Plate 74. 

 E. resinifera and E. pmictatn are large timber trees of Eastern Australia, which 

 possess no close resemblance to E. Oldfieldii. 



