323 



2. With E. virgata, Sieb. 



Herbarium specimens sometimes exhibit a good deal of similarity. I have a 

 fiat-topped fruit (not quite ripe) of the large-fruited kind of hcemastoma from 

 Peat's-road, Hawkesbury Ptiver, which was named E. olryata by an excellent 

 authority. 



3. With E. Luehmanniana, F.v.M. 



The juvenile leaves present a good deal of resemblance. There is a closer 

 resemblance between typical JuBnmstoma and Luelnnaniudna, variety altlor, which 

 it may be sufficient to draw attention to. 



4 With E. eoriacea, A. Cunu. 



The large-fruited or typical iKemastoma may resemble those of E. eoriacea a 

 good deal, but the venation of the leaves is different. E. /uciiiastoiiia has clean 

 white stems much after the appearance of E. eoriacea. 



5. With E. Gunnii, Hook, f., var. maculosa. 



This vi^ill be dealt with Avhen the variety is reached. 



In 1901 (Proc. Linn. Soe., N.S.TF., ]). 12i), Mr. Deane and I described, 

 under the name of E. /uemastoina, Sm., var. montana, a shrubby plant only 2 or 

 3 feet high, from Mt. Victoria, collected by myself. The bark of so small a shrub 

 was no guide, and the blood-red rims decided us to place it with E. hcsniasfonia — 

 a pardonable error, as it obviously strongly resembles that species. 



Since then, however, I have obtained typical E. amygilalina, var. nitida, 

 and I find that these specimens precisely match Gunn's No. 808, e.g., Currie's 

 Iliver, Tasmania. The pale-brown fruits with the dark red-brown rims arrest attention. 

 The only point in which [ can distinguish the Mt. Victoria specimens from those 

 of Currie's River consists in the more obvious oil-glands of those from Mt. A^ictoria, 

 but this may be in a measure owing to the age (over 60 years) of the Tasmanian 

 specimens. The similarity of the specimens is remarkable when it is borne in mind 

 that the Tasmanian specimens ai'e mostly from the sea-coast, while Mt. Victoria is 

 an inland mountain locality. In a paper* I have given very definite evidence of 

 the absolute similarity of many Tasmanian and New South Wales forms, and this 

 is an additional example. 



E. hcemastoma, var. niicrunlha, differs in the erect, less falcate foliage of E. 

 amyfjdalina, var. nilida. Both forms shoiv oil- dots very abundantly. E. amygdalina, 

 var. nitida, shows these dots far more abundantly than E. hicmastoma, var. micrantha, 

 as a rule, whose leaves are generally thicker," but in mountain specimens it is 

 sometimes not possible to separate them on these grounds. 



The fruits are less brown, less sessile, and with a rather more marked rim 

 than those of var. nilida . 



As regards anii/gdalina gi^ierally, the rims of the fruit are thinner ; amygdalina 

 has fibrous, and hcemastoina a smooth bark; but in dwarf mountain forms it is 

 sometimes difficult to speak about bark. 



'A .secoiul contribution towanla a '' Klcini of Mt. Kosciiisku." — (A'jric. Un:. S .H. 11'., 1S)I!).) 



