309 



AFFINITIES. 



1. With E. uncinata Turcz. 

 Bentbam says : 



" Possibly a form of B. unc'mala, but both the operculum and s/rtwt'«s appear 

 different" (B.FI. iii, 218). 



Mueller subsequently writes : — 



The differeuces of E. mkrcinthera (from E. nncinala) arc less obvious (than E. corynocalyx F.v.M., 

 and E. decurva F.v.M.— J.H.M.), consisting in somewhat larger imdotted leaves, with tlic circumferential 

 vein distant from the edge, lid shorter than the tube of the calyx, which latter is also proportionately broader, 

 in thicker filaments, the openings of the anthers extending further downward, stout style and somewhat 

 larger fruit (the size of the fruit can only be guessed at by analogy ; it has never been collected nor 

 described.— J.H.M.) ; the filaments are in a similar way very straight except the single curvature about their 

 middle. (" Eucalyptographia," under E. nncinala.) 



The superficial resemblance to normal H. nnclnata is not close, since the 

 latter is a slenderer plant, but probably Bentbam bad in bis mind such a form as is 

 depicted at fig. 15, Plate G2, a form supposed to be bis var. major. The resemblance 

 is certainly strong, but the antbcrs are dilferent and the serrulate filament of 

 E. micranihera is not present. 



2. With E. decipiens. 



Bentbam (B.FI. iii, 193) contrasts tbcse two species thus :— 



Operculum obtuse, shorter than tbe calyx-tube. . . . E. micranihera. 

 Operculuiii acuminate, longer than the calyx-tube. . . . E. decipiens. 



Then Mueller says : — 



" E. micranihera, wbicb is closely conncct(tl uitb tbe arboreous and soft- 

 barked ^. (?ec?2>"c;>s " . . . (" Eucalyptographia " under JE". mmmato.) 



It would not have occurred to me to make the comparison. A good many 

 figures of E. decipiens will be found on Plate 03. E. decipiens may attain a 

 considerable size. One must defer further consideration of the supposed affinity 

 until we get complete material of E. micranihera. 



3. With E. incrassata Labill. 



E. micranihera .... differs from tbe genuine E. inorassala, 

 particularly in its very short and almost heart-shaped anthers, but in other respects 

 comes near to the variety so long separated as E. ditmosa (" lucalyptographia " 

 under E. incrassata). 



In Part IV of this work (Plate 13, &c.) will be seen figures of E. incrassata, 

 and in Plate 16 figures of E. incrassata var. dumosa. The general resemblance is 

 undoubtedly present, but the corrugated opercula of var. dumosa is abscMit and (he 

 general shape of the buds of E. incras.sata is different ; the anthers and iikiments 

 are very different. 



