316 



The Blue Mountains trees of E. Sleheriaua have not, as a rule, the furrowed 

 Ironhark-looking bark of the typical form, and, speakin;:? in general terms, the bark 

 of E. Consideniana presents some resemblance also to the bark of the trees of 

 E. Sieberiana, with which it is associated. 



3. With E. Andrew si. Maiden. 



Compare pp. 195, 196, Part VII of this work, 'llio fruits of E. Consideniana 

 are conoid to pyriform. Those of E. Andrewsi may be conoid, but they are smaller 

 in size than those of Considmiuna. Both are " Messmates," and the affinities of 

 the two species require more working out in the field. At present we have a gap 

 between the localities of E. Consideniana (going north) and those of E. Andrewsi. 

 If possible, I want to see if either or both species occur in this gap, and, if they 

 grow together, whether the fruits of E. Consideniana become smaller. The two 

 species have marked dissimilarities, and cannot be confused in their typical forms. 



4>. With E. virgata, Sieb., var. stricta. 



That the species possesses affinity to this variety there is no doubt. 



In some fruits the base of the capsule is remarkably constricted, the whole 

 being pear-shaped; the rim is broad and somewhat sunk in some specimens. Since 

 tliis was first observed, the fruit has been found to be more domed when fully ripe, 

 and hence the similarity to var. stricta is less strong. What was described later as 

 E. Consideniana was referred to by Mr. Deane and myself as a variety of E, stricta 

 in Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 1900, p. 109. 



5. With E. regnans, F.v.M., yhv. fastigata. 



Its affinity to this variety is considerable, in points other than that of the 

 shape of the fruit. The barks of the two trees are not very dissimilar, but E. Con- 

 sidetiiana prefers drier, rockier situations tlian E. regiiins, var. fastifjata. It w^as 

 referred to by Mr. Deane and myself as a pyriform-fruited fastiyata in Proc. Linn. 

 Soc. N.S.Jr., 1901. 



6. With E. hcemastoma, Sm. 



The fruit is somewhat like that of E. hcemastoma in shape, particularly the 

 large-fruited, coastal Sydney form, which is typical. Of course, E. hcemastoma is 

 a Gum (i.e. a smooth-barked species). 



