67 



AFFINITIES. 



The "Messmate " from the Dandeuong and i)tlu'r parts of Victoria is, according to F. Mueller's specimens, 

 also referable to E. obUqua, although it has the leaves rather thinner with the veins more conspicuous. 

 (B. Fl. iii, 205.) 



Tliere is a certain amount of variation in tlie thickness of the leaves of 

 E. obliqua, as in other allied species of Eucalyptus, e.g., regnans. At the same time, 

 I have never seen any well-marked variety of E. obliqua. The nearest approach to 

 a variety is one of the " Stringy-barked Gums " referred to at p. 09, but one Avould 

 hesitate to add another name to this already long list, unless absolutely compelled 

 to do so. 



HoAvitt says : — 



The seedlings of E. obliqua are usually free from hairs, hut are very commonly warty and the 

 leaves are lanceolar, shining on one side, and thinner in texture than those of E. niaerorrhi/ncha. They 

 become scattered somewhat sooner than those of E. macrorrhyncha and very much sooner than those of 

 E. M>ielleriana, and soon show the marked unecjuahsidodness which is so characteristic of this tree. — 

 (Trrms. Roy. Soc. Vict., 1900-1, vol. 2, p. 9.3.) 



1. E. piliilaris, Sm. — A similarity to E. pUidaria (in its var. Muelleriana) 

 has already been alluded to. The similarity exists in leaves, fruits, bark, and other 

 characters. The differences are not easy to define, except Avith considerable 

 verbiage, and in doul^tfiil cases I can only enjoin careful attention to the types. 



2. E. eugenioides, Sieb. — I think the reason that E. obliqua has only been 

 recognised in this State during recent years is because it Avas confused Avith this 

 species. E. eugenioides is a stringybark and shades off into the obliqua stringy- 

 bark on the one hand and the capitellata stringyl)ark on the other. Tlio foliage of 

 E. obliqua is less coarse than that of E. eugenioides, its opercula is less conical, its 

 fruits less hemispherical and with thinner rims. 



3. E. piperita, Sm. 



E. oUiqiKi can be distinguished readily enough from E. jiij)frita by its thicker and usually larger 

 le.ivcs with more i)rouiinent and less divergent veins, the underpage of the leaves neither evidently paler 

 nor less shining than the under side (hence the stimiata are in almost equal nuuibor on either side of the 

 leaves), in less crowded umbels, in calcyes less smooth, with shorter and blunter lid, the greater elongation 

 of the calyx tube into the .stnlklet and also the rather larger fruit with comparatively less constricted 

 orifice. The two are the only species among closely-allied kinds which have the summit of the fruit very 

 considerably cimtracted, hence no dilliculty can arise for recognising E. nli/iqiia. (Mueller in 

 " Kucalyptographia.") 



I liardly tliiiik tliese two species arc likely to be often confused. The coai'so, 

 tliick foliai,'e of E. obliqua, its stringy l)ark, in coniradiction to tlic sub-librous l)ark 



