280 

 But Bentliam's description (B.Fl. iii, 217) of the stamens of E. stricta, Sieb., 



is: 



Stamens not above 2 linos long, inflected in the bud; anthers very small and globular, with distinct 

 parallel cells, opening at first in round pores, which extend into oblong slits. 



Such anthers, partly as Bentham describes {i.e., parallel cells), are figured in 

 PI. 8, M('m. Myrt., DC, but Bentham says, " Anthers incorrect." 



Luehmann says: — " The typical stricta of Sieber. Well described in ' Eucalypto- 

 graphia ' with reniform anthers. Bentham (B.Fl. iii, 217) apparently had a mixture 

 of two species before him, describing the fruit of E. stricta, but the anthers of another 

 species." — {Proc. Aust. Assoc. Adv. Science, 1898, p. 528.) 



I feel satisfied that all that is wrong in Plate 8 is the two enlarged anthers, and 

 that the remainder of the plate may be accepted as true to its label — " Eucalyptus 

 stricta, Sieb." 



I repeat (having seen Sieber's type of E. stricta) that both Bentham's description 

 of the anthers as globular and De Candolle's figure of them as parallel-celled, are wrong, 

 and that Sieber's plant belongs to the Renantherae. 



Speaking of the synonymy of E. oleosa, F.v.M., Mueller says: — 



" E. cneorifolia, DC. Prod, iii, 220, and B.Fl. iii, 217, ' so far as the plant with rour/k calyx (see Do 

 Candolle's plate 9.— J.H.M.) and kidney-shaped anthers from the mountains of New South Wales {E. stricta, 

 Sieb. — J.H.M.) united with it by De Candolle, and of which he gave a figure in his Meraoire sur la famille 

 des Myrtacees pi. 9,' is concerned " (Eucalyptographia, under E. oleosa). 



He carries out the same view when he labels a Blue Mountain specimen: — " E. 

 stricta, Sieb.: E. cneorifolia, DC, Mem. et partim prod." (perhaps referring to the 

 fruits). He puts a similar label on an E. ajpiculata specimen. 



Mueller's view, and I had it from his own mouth and from that of Luehmann, 

 may be also expressed in this way: — 



The E. stricta, Benth., non Sieb. = E. cneorifolia, DC (as depicted in Plate 9), 

 which cneorifolia perhaps — oleosa. Such a plant is not found on the Blue Mountains 

 of New South Wales. 



Mueller's view is the result of pushing the figures of parallel anthers in De 

 Candolle's Plate 8 {E. stricta, Sieb.) to their logical conclusion, and also contemplatmg 

 the rather poor figure d {oi E. cneorifolia, where the fruits more closely resemble stricta 

 than cneorifolia). I do not think it is necessary to take E. oleosa into consideration, 

 and trust that the identity of E. stricta, Sieb., is perfectly clear. 



I shall refer to the unfortunate confusion of E. stricta and E. cneorifolia again 

 when I come to the latter species, since through the kindness of M. Casimir De Candolle 

 I am in a position to speak with authority as to the plants confused under E. cneorifolia, 

 DC. 



