270 



The salient points of E. umbra may be borne in mind as follows : — 



Leaves thickish, with margins not so crenulate as in E. acmenioides, or absent. Not usually paler 

 on the underside, except in juvenile foliage. 



[In my view, thinness of foliage and paleness of the underside of the leaves are 

 characters developed in comparatively sheltered localities. Mr. Baker (op. cit. xxv, 

 688) quotes Mr. Baeuerlen as stating that E. acmenioides penetrates only into the rich 

 scrub, while E. umbra is found in the poorer forest country. I have dealt with the 

 differences of habitat of the two forms in xxix, 758.] 



Buds more angular than those of E. acmenioides. 



Fruit, five lines in diameter, when mature (R. T. Baker), more hemispherical than spherical, rim 

 broadish, sometimes very broad, and often domed. The pedicels usually coarser than those of E. 

 acmenioides, and the plant altogether coarser. 



Mr. Baker calls his E. umbra " Stringybark," and that is a name very widely 

 applied to E. acmenioides. Both are called " White Mahogany." 



The differences between Mr. Baker's species umbra and carnea and acmenioides, 

 Schauer, are thus indicated by Mr. Baker {Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., xxxi, 305). 



E. carnea. "The abnormal leaves (a term newly coined by Mr. Baker in lieu of 'juvenile fohage ), 

 venation, and texture differ in shape from those of E. umbra. 



" Fruits can scarcely on a first inspection, if at all, be distinguished fro m E. acmenioides 



Valves and inner rim (of E. acmenioides) always deeper sunk than in E. carnea. The leaves of those two 

 trees, though having much the same venation, are decidedly different, especially in their texture, shape, 

 and colour. Those of E. acmenioides arc thin, whilst those of E. carnea arc thick, and the abnormal leaves 

 of each are quite different, and sharply divide the species." 



My specimens show that there is transition in thickness of leaves between 

 E. acmenioides and E. carnea, while the shapes of the " abnormal " leaves of the two 

 species are not as sharply different as was at one time believed to be the case. 



Mr. Baker places E. carnea next to E. nigra ("its nearest congener is E. nigra 

 in a ligneous classification, otherwise it differs from it in the shape of its fruits, leaves, 

 and oil-contents "), and also says, " In a systematic series it might be placed between 

 E. acmenioides and E. nigra."" He adds that in E. carnea the timber is tinged with 

 pink. 



I have done my best to accentuate the differences between E. acmenioides and 

 E. umbra, and some differences that I thought to be very important have since been 

 shown to be less definite. I have endeavoured to retain the name E. umbra, but 

 I think that it is very probable that further investigation may show that it is really 

 a climatic and soil form of E, acmenioides, a view universally held until Mr. Baker 

 described umbra in 1900, 



