369 



DESCRIPTION. 



XXVII. E. umbra , R. T. Baker. 



The origiual description will be found in Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., xxv, 687 (1900). 

 This is modified to some extent by the describer, op. cit. xxxi, p. 304 (under E. carnea): 

 See figures 10-12, Plate 41, of the present work. 



Notes supplementary to the description. 



In the original description of this species (p. 687) Mr. Baker described the sucker 

 leaves (juvenile leaves) as " thin." Op. cit. xxix, 758, in endeavouring to accentuate 

 the differences between E. acmenioides and E. umbra, I corrected this, stating that 

 they were thick. I have since got them both thick and thin, and no doubt thinness 

 is the proper character, thickness being induced by climatic exposure. 



E. umbra is a species which Mueller and other botanists considered to be a coarse 

 form of E. acmenioides. Mr. Deane and I {Proc. Linn. Soc, N.S.W. xxiii, 789) explained 

 that view. E. umbra is (b) the " stout and coarse " form. Op. cit. xxix, 758 (1904) I 

 have tried to accentuate the differences between E. acmenioides and E. umbra in the 

 following words: — 



" These species may be at once separated if sucker-leaves be available. Tho33 of E. aomcnioides 

 are thin and Eugenia Smithii- (Acmena-) like, while those of E. umbra are thick, broad, and coarsD, much 

 thicker and coarser than those of E. acmenioides. They are indeed as thick and coarse a? those of E. 

 capite'Jata ever are. The statement in the original description of E. umbra, that the sucker-leaves are 

 ' thin,' must be modified." 



And again (p. 759) — 



" Usually the fiat-rimmcd fruit is accompanied by thick foliage, indicating umbra. But sometimes 

 this coarse foliage accompanies thin-rimmed fruits which one has hitherto assigned to E. acmenioides without 

 hesitation. Such, for example, is the ' Messmate ' of Awaba, which grows on foot-hills, moist places, not 

 awamps. These specimens certainly show a transit between E. umbra and E. acmenioides, and in the 

 present state of our knowledge I doubt if wo can always separate the two species in the abssnce of juvenile 

 foliage." 



I have since tried to work out the differences in bark and timber, but have failed 

 so far to obtain characters which I can rely upon. 



For Mr. Baker's observations on this point, see op. cit. xxv, 688. He states 

 that it is " altogether a much inferior timber to E. acmenioides." We want further 

 information on this point. 



Some observers consider the differences between E. acmenioides and E. umbra 

 a matter of soil. Mr. Andrew Murphy, seed-collector, who has collected Eucalyptus 

 S3ed for me by the hundredweight, wrote me, " I am not clear about the ' thick riin 

 White Mahogany.' It seems to mo that ordinary White Mahogany takes that form 

 when near the sea-coast on mountain-tops." 



