DESCRIPTION. 



C XXX VIII. E. Perriniana F.v.M. 



In Rodway, Pap. and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas., p. 181 (1893). 



Following is the history of this species as given by me in Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W. 

 xlviii, 428 (1914) : — 



The plant which was afterwards known as E. Perriniana was first shown in leaf only without 

 fruits by the late Mr. G. S. Perrin* before the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science. 

 Although he surmised it might be a new species, he simply referred to it as " Specimen No. 2," and stated 

 that the leave* are always perfoliate in young or old specimens (which was not correct as regards mature 

 leaves if that is what he meant). 



Soon after, the plant was named E. Perriniana by Mueller, as Mr. Perrin verbally informed me 

 on more than one occasion. I believe the naming took the form of distributing the plant with written 

 notes about it. Mueller was sometimes a law to himself in such matters. 



Rodway, so far as I am aware, and doubtless with Mueller's sanction, first printed! the name 

 E. Perriniana F.v.M. The leaves are at first " all opposite, connate and orbicular," later they become 

 " alternate, petioled and lanceolate."' 



Then we have E. Gunnii Hook, f., var. glauca Deane and Maiden. j This description includes 

 specimens of E. Perriniana (Snowy Mountains) and at least one other species. 



Deane and Maiden, op. cit. xxvi, 135 (1901). state that var. glauca is identical with E. Periiniana 

 F.v.M., and quote Rodway (letter of 27th March, 1900) as stating that E. Perriniana is " a very luxuriant 

 young growth of E. Gunnii." 



Of. cit. xxvi, 563, I observed that " variety glauca (of Gunnii) should not be maintained, and it 

 and E. Perriniana should be simply placed under E. Gunnii Hook, f., they being not sufficiently removed 

 from the type. 



Messrs. Baker and Smith describe § E. Perriniana F.v.M. and arrive at the conclusion that 

 " Morphologically they (E. Gunnii and E. Perriniana) are distinct, whilst E. Perriniana is identical with 

 the tree growing at Tingiringi Mountain. N.S.W." 



In the following year Rodway ,1 again speaks of E. Perriniana as glowing into the typical E. Gunnii. 



Baker and Smithy claim the species on the ground that it had not been described before they had 

 done so in 1902. Rodway's account of it in 1893 is available to anybody, and if that first meritorious 

 though not complete description be brushed aside, then the number of Eucalyptus descriptions which 

 must also be abandoned on similar grounds would be very many. I have touched upon** this point 

 already, which is one apart from the question as to whether E. Perriniana is a valid species or not. 

 (I believe it is.) 



' Rtpt. Aust. Assoc. Adv. Science, ii, 557 (1390). 



f Pap. and Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas., p. 181 (1S93). In his " Tasmanian Flora," p. 58, he distinctly slates that Mueller 

 suggested the name. 



tProc. Li,.„. Soc. N.S.W., xxiv, 464 (1899), with Plate xlii, fitrs. 5-7. 



§ " Research on the Eucalypts," 205 (1902). 



j| "The Tasmanian Flora," p. 58 (1903). 



IT Pap. ad Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas., p. 163, 1911 (1912). 



*• Op. cit.. p. 26 (1914). 



