18 



AFFINITIES. 



Beutham places it in his section Norniales (sub-series Subsessiles), and states 

 its closest affinities to be E. globulus and E. alpina. Mueller (" Eucalyptographia ") 

 comments on the affinities to E. alpina, E. Preissiana, and E. megacarpa. 



1. With E. alpina Lindl. 



" From which the more pointed generally elongated and not shining leaves, 

 the presence of flowerstalks, the larger flowers, smooth calyces with thinner lids, 

 the oval anthers and the less hemispheric fruits readily distinguish it." (Mueller). 



Attention is invited to Plate 41, Part IX. of this work. • There is a good deal 

 of similarity in the leaves. The large fruit depicted at bb of Plate 41 resembles 

 that of E. cosmophylla a good deal, but it and the other fruits of E. alpina are more 

 domed. E. alpina is a stringybark, and in anthers and buds it is very different 

 from E. cosmophylla. 



2. With E. Preissiana Schauer. 



It might be likened to the still more ornamental E. Preissiana, but that species has often partially 

 opposite or nearly opposite, mostly quite blunt, and still thicker leaves of more vivid and somewhat 

 shining verdure. Its flowerstalks are generally longer and always broadly compressed, and at first turned 

 downward ; the flowers and fruits are in most instances larger, sometimes much so ; the. filaments are 

 bright yellow, the rial of the fruit is more descending, the valves generally somewhat deeper enclosed and 

 outward tumid, and the seeds larger, as well as more uniformly broad. (Mueller). 



To this may be added that E. Preissiana is always a small shrub. Examina- 

 tion of Plate 78 shows the two species are sufficiently distinct. 



3. With E. megacarpa P.v.M. 



It verges in its affinity somewhat to E. megacarpa, although that species forms a good-sized tree, 

 has narrower, thinner and darker leaves, broader and flat flowerstalks, larger at the base, rather less 

 turgid fruits, with finally convex emersed summit and very thick valves, larger and also broader sterile 

 seeds. (Mueller . 



The two trees have some similarity in habit, although E. cosmophylla is 

 uniformly larger. The barks have some resemblance, although that of E. cosmophylla 

 is thinner and more ilaky ; the timber of E. cosmophylla is red. Comparison of 

 Plate 78 shows that the leaves have some affinity, so also have the buds, but the 

 anthers and fruits are very dissimilar. 



4. Witli E. pulverulenta Sims. 



Examination of Plate 91 shows that the fruits of the two species bear a 

 strong resemblance, The anthers arc not very dissimilar, but I am not able to 

 indicate any closer affinity. 



5. With E. Oldfieldii E.v.M. 



I only see affinity in the shape of the buds ; the anthers are very different. 



