162 

 Later on, Rodway observes : — 



It remains still a matter of opinion whether the tree should be csnsidercd specifically distinct from 

 E. vernicosa H. Its close relationship is undeniable, but the fact that this tree appears to die out at a 

 sub-alpine altitude, and the dwarf alpine E. vernicosa not appearing in localities wjiere this is so common, 

 ■would lend some weight in support of the trifling structural differences. Beyond the greater dimension of 

 the tree the leaf is more oblique, longer proportionately, and the veins more regular and less oblique than 

 in E. vernicosa. and the calyx and capsule are larger. But these differences are not more than could be 

 reasonably expected from the greater vigour. 



The wood is of a pale red colour, and rather heavy; of a close fibrous texture of great tenacity, and 

 is commonly used for palings and shingles, but it makes excellent axe-handles, and would be very useful 

 for all purposes where considerable strength and toughness were required. (L. Rcdway. Proc. Boy. Soc. 

 Tas., 1894, p. 51.) 



The same botanist subsequently says : — 



Here (Mt. Geikie, West Coast) also occurs a small form of E. Muelleri T. B. Moore, only 15-20 feet 

 high, which though very similar in general appearance to E. vernicosa, still maintains its distinctness in its 

 crenulated leaves with less oblique venation and flattened operculum. (L. Rodway, Proc. Boy. Sec. Tas., 

 1898-9, p. 104.) 



Rodway's latest published judgment, in his " Tasmanian Flora," p. 58 (1903), 

 is " Very probably a lowland form of E. vernicosa Hook, f." 



I have already, p. 159, pointed out how difficult it is sometimes to make up 

 one's mind as to the limitation of a species, and consideration of such limitation can 

 be very usefully studied in connection with E. vernicosa and E. Muelleri. Mr. Rodway 

 has put the case for and against E. Muelleri being a variety of E. vernicosa very fairly. 



I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, it is desirable that E. Muelleri 

 should be recognised as a distinct species. 



The facts that the leaves of E. vernicosa are varnished, those of E. Muelleri 

 being much less so, and that the former species is a small (never very large) shrub, 

 while E. Muelleri attains the size of a large timber tree, have some value. 



Now let us compare the figures on Plate 116. The juvenile foliage of 

 E. vernicosa is unknown; that f E. Muelleri is shown at 5a and 6a. The mature 

 leaves of E. vern icosa are small, nearly as broad as long, and shortly petiolate ; those 

 of E. Muelleri are much larger, long in proportion to their width, and have long 

 petioles. The anthers are nearly the same, the buds of E. Muelleri are much more 

 angled, sometimes winged. It is in the fruits that the two species differ greatly, those 

 of E. vernicosa being campanulate. with a thinnish rim and the valves sunk; those of 

 E. Muelleri are nearly hemispherical, coarsely angled, and with broad rims. 



2. With E. urnigera Hook. f. 



It (.tows with ery like E. urnigera, lf""k. f., with which I have no doubt it has been 



founded, The two treea can hardly be distinguished when Been together, and with E. Muelleri the 

 branches are vcrv tough, so that it is mosi unusual to pick up brol with inlloresccnce. With 



E. urnigera on thi I L. R ilv.ay, /'roc Roy. Soc. Tas., 1894, p. 51.) 



Compare Part XVI 11. Plate 80, of the present work. There is a general 



similarity between both juvenile and mature leaves of both species— certainly 



sufficient to put one on one's guard. The anthers are not very dissimilar, but the 



buds and fruits are sharply dissimilar. 



