329 



2. With E. cornuta, Labill. 



" Stamens almost straight in bud, only slightly flexuose, thus imitating those of the E. cornula and 

 its allies ; hence the antliers not concealed before the expansion of the flower by the inflection of the 

 filaments." 



(Mueller in " Eucalyptograpliia " under E. siderophloia). 

 The anthers and other characters of the two species are, however, very 

 different, and the differences in other respects are very marked. 



3. With E. hemiphloia, E.v.M., var. albens (E. alhens). 



" Evidently allied" (Benth.). The affinity is not close, and will be referred 

 to when E. hemiphloia is dealt with. 



■i and 5. With E. crebra, E.v.M., and E. panieidata, Sm. 



" Evidently allied to E. crebra and the other Ironbarks " (Benth.). 



It is most readily distinguished from the other Ironbarks {E. imiiiciUata and 

 E. crebra, being the species with which it is most likely to be confused), by its 

 coarseness of foliage and the flattish, broad ridges of the bark. In E. crebra the 

 inflorescence and fruits are much smaller. In E. paniculata the anthers are very 

 different and the fruits have not the valves exsert, but the latter is a character 

 which must be used with caution. See p. 328. 



5. With E. resinifera, Sm. 



" The rostrate variety, when in young bud, resembles E. resinifera, and even E. tereticornis, but 

 the venation, and still more the anthers, distinguish it." (B.Fl. iii, 220). 



The species most likely to be confused with E. siderophloia in herbarium 

 specimens is E. resinifera, Sm., the proof being that such confusion actually does take 

 place, the two species being often mixed by botanists, particularly when leaves and 

 buds are alone available. See fig. 27, Plate 47. The two trees cannot be confused 

 in the field, the bark of E. resinifera being fibrous and the timber very different. 



