220 



The fruits of typical E. Muelleriaua are, on the average, about half an inch 

 in diameter. It might be desirable to give tlie small-fruited forms {i.e., those about 

 a quarter of an inch in diameter, or rather more) a name, for it is they Avhieh show 

 transit to and are confused with B. eugenioides. It might be desirable to renew the 

 variety name minor which was applied to forms of E. Icempinea by Mr. Baker, but, 

 as regards myself, I must say that I am unable to define the sniall-fruited forms as 

 distinct from E. eugenioides. They are simply portions of a curve. 



E. Bfuel/eriana is known as " Yellow Stringybark," from the yellowness of 

 the inner bark, which yellowness also often exhibits itself as a stain more or less 

 marked throughout the wood. At one time I hoped that this yellowness (where 

 evidence of its presence is available) might l)o a useful diagnostic character. It is 

 certainly useful sometimes, but it breaks down in that it is observable in 

 E. eugenioides and other sjiecies. Tlie presence of this colouring matter in various 

 trees is worthy of investigation by the chemist, as it may be of some aid to diagnosis 

 not clearly understood at present. I have spoken of the yellow colour being present 

 in species other than Muelleriana; I now give an instance of its absence from 

 Muelleriaua. " Pale Stringybark," Mt. Lofty, S.A. (R. H. Cambage, 20th March, 

 1901) ; also, same locality (Walter Gill, Nov., 1901). Mr. Gill adds the note "The 

 inner bark has none of the bright yellow colour of the Wiugello, New South Wales, 

 trees you and I felled in March." The Wingello trees are tyj)ical Muelleriana. See 

 Tart I, p. 40. 



The Mt. Lofty specimens have duller buds and fruits, shape of fruits some- 

 what pear-shaped, rim well defined, reddish-brown, slightly domed, tips of valves 

 slightly exsert. The fruits are reminiscent of those of some South Avistralian 

 specimens of E. diversifolia, Bonpl. 



AFFINITIES. 



1. E. pilularis, Sm. 



Its affinity to E. pilularis, Sm., I have abundantly made clear in Part I of 

 this work. I sometimes cannot separate them on herbarium specimens. E. 

 semicorticata, P.v.M., Brisbane River (received by me from Kew), has the pointed 

 buds of E. pilularis, and the fruits of E. Muelleriana. I can only repeat that 

 E. Muelleriana cannot be separated by hard lines from E. j^Hularis. 



2. E. eugenioides, Sieb. 



I do not know on what character — juvenile foliage, mature foliage, buds, 

 fruits, bark, timl^er, E. Muelleriana (in its small-fruited forms) can be absolutely 

 separated from E. eugenioides, Sieb. I have already touched on this point, both 

 under E. eugeniaides and in my preliminary remarks under E. Muelleriana. That 

 being so, I cannot find fault with a botanist who does not see eye to eve with me in 



