303 



Mt. Wilson. — Here we have fruits less urceolate ; the typical and less 

 iirceolate forms existing side by side. 



Curricudgy Movintain, Rylstone District (R. T. Baker). 



Northern Localities. — Gosford (H. Blacket). " Not very plentiful ; scattered 

 in places along the coast and slopes of Dividing Range and New England ; some- 

 what gregarious in hahit. Height 100 feet, diameter 2 feet 6 inches" (Mr. Forester 

 Rudder, Booral). 



Very scarce in the Kempsey District (Mr. Forester Macdonald). 



I have not personally seen it further nortli than Bullahdelah (Mr. Rudder's 

 locality). 



As regards Queensland, while admitting it into his " Queensland Flora," 

 p. 613, Mr. F. M. Bailey says :— 



There is some doubt as to whether the normal form of this species has been met with in Queensland. 

 Some years ago, however, I gathered a specimen off a tree at Highfields, which Baron Mueller at the time 

 considered the normal form, and now I have none of the specimens to refer to. 



AFFINITIES. 



1. With E. eugenioides. (Compare Part VIII, p. 240.) 



In the "Flora Australiensis " E. eugenioides is reduced to a variety of E. 

 2jiperita, and even in the " Eucalyptographia " the Baron almost exjiresses doubts as 

 to whether finally Bentham's opinion that both should be regarded as forms of one 

 species may not have to be adopted. His figure of E. piperita is incorrect, as has 

 already been pointed out. A comparison of the two types as they occur near Sydney 

 must convince the most incredulous as to the distinctness of the two species. 

 Nevertheless there are certain forms which, ju.dging from herbarium specimens or 

 fruits alone, are intermediate. 



Howitt in his " Eucalypts of Gippsland " {Trans. R.S. Vict., Vol. ii. Part I, 

 p. 87) speaks of the " near alliance " of E. piperita and E. eugenioides. Speaking 

 generally, the two species are very distinct and are not to be mistaken one for the 

 other. They differ markedly in tlieir seedlings, in the venation of the mature leaves, 

 and in the odour of the same ; in their bark and timbers. 



Howitt has figured a number of fruits in his Plate 13 which he attributes to 

 E. piperita, viz., Nos. 6-19, Nos. 20 and 21 being referred to E. eugenioides. Nos. 

 6 to 9 are possibly, yet doul)tfully, referable to E. piperita; as regards the remainder 

 I would suggest that they belong to E. eugenioides without any doubt. I would 

 also invite attention to Mr. Howitt's excellent drawings of seedlings on Plate 14. 

 Nos. 1 and 4 seem to me to belong to identical species, viz., /i'. eugenioides. I never 

 saw hairs on a piperita seedling. 



B 



