315 



AFFINITIES. 



1 and 2. With E. piperita, Sm., ami E. Siehenana, F.v.M. 



The closest affinity of this species is to E. Slebevlana and E. p'q^erita ; in 

 fact, it is possible that it is a hybrid between these two species. 



In expressing this opinion, I desire to make a note inculcating caution. It 

 is sometimes difficult to properly assign the use of names ; for the fact is, all species 

 have probably arrived at their present development largely by means of hybridism. 

 The following will illustrate what I mean : — 



E. Consideniana perhaps has E. piperita and E. Sieberiana blood in its 

 veins. We therefore might perhaps explain its position by saying that it is a hybrid 

 between these two. But if E. Considemana had been described first, it perhaps 

 would not have occurred to botanists to describe, say, E. piperita as a hybrid of it. 



Dr. Howitt writes to me : " I have been turning over in my mind your remarks re possible 

 hybridisation in ' Yertchuk.' I am doubtful about it, because it forms a considerable part of the forests 

 in a stretch of some 20 miles. In one part there is E. Sieberiana, but not elsewhere. I do not know of 

 E. piperita, but E. eugenioides occurs throughout the forests together with another Stringybark." 



Since the above was written, I have had the opportunity, in the company of 

 Mr. J. L. King, who travelled a good deal with Dr. Howitt in Gippsland, of 

 inspecting the Yertchuk country from the head of Dead Horse Creek to near Boggy 

 Creek. The prevailing eucalypt is E. Sieberiana, with a little E. eugenioides. 

 There is no E. piperita, as Dr. Howitt states. Yertchuk may be a hybrid still, i.e., 

 between E. Sieberiana and E. eugenioides, the slight differences betAveen the New 

 South Wales and Victorian trees being perhaps explained by the absence of 

 E. piperita in Gippsland. 



Of course, hybridism is merely an explanation of the origin of E. Con- 

 sideniana to begin with ; the type once established and coming true from seed, it 

 would become propagated in time in districts in which neither of its reputed first 

 parents {piperita and Sieberiana) are to be found. I will discuss the matter again 

 when dealing with the general subject of hybridisation in Eucalypts. 

 With E. piperita, Sm 



The bark is fibrous like that of E. piperita, and the general appearance of the 

 tree reminds one of that species. 



E. piperita fruits in large masses or bunches, while E. Consideniana is a 

 compai'atively .shy fruiter. 



With E. Sieberiana, F.v.M. 



The leaves, buds, and fruits are reminiscent of E. Sieberiawi, though the 

 leaves are perhaps tliinner. The narrow juvenile foliage leav(>s, however, separate 

 E. Consideniana from any with which it is most lik(>ly to be confounded. The 

 Penang fruits are not perfectly typical; they show more than ordinary resemblance 

 to those of E. Sieberiana. 



