(II) J.-II. MAIDK.N. KLCAI.VITLS i KHKI ICdRMS AM) r.itSIKATA. .')79 



of that of E. rostrata. E. tereticomis in one of its forms grows, as we 

 hâve abready seen, in sv/ampy localities, and sometimes tlic shapc of 

 the operciilum is not too safe a criterion to go by. For example the 

 « Water Gum « or « Creek Gum » {E. rostrata) of the Burrowa dis- 

 trict N. S. W., is not constant in form. We hâve (i). Comparativeiy 

 large, nearly hemispherical fruits and the typical opercula. (2) spéci- 

 mens scarcely differing from the typical rostrata of the iuterior. Then 

 we hâve, growing but a few yards from the preceding, trces whose 

 fruits 1 find it impossible to separate from (2). Extreme forms of the 

 fruits of E. rostrata and E. tereticoniis are sufticiently distinct, bnit 

 thèse are ideutical. The pedicels are filiform and the opercula arc 

 I)inched, but intermediate in form between typical tereticornis and 

 typical rostrata. I hâve placed this with E. tereticornis as I hâve to 

 place it somewhere, but it equally belongs to rostrata, and I repeat 

 I caunot find any character in thèse spécimens which shows that it 

 belongs more to the one than the other. In other words, it is a link in 

 the grand tereticornis -rostrata species. 



In a i-eport to the Victorian Government M"" A. W. Howitt says. 



« The Red Gum as I hâve noted is of two varieties which are distin- 

 guishable by slight botanical différences and by the usually larger size of 

 the leaves of seedlings and young saplings in the Gippsland form (E.tere- 

 ticortiis). I hâve placed this first because I havo reason to believe that 

 the timber is barder and denser than that of the Murray River Red 

 Gum {E. rostrata). The Gippsland Red Gum is confined almost entirely 

 to that part of the colony ; I hâve only observed it elsewhere in the 

 extreme north-eastern district. The Murray River Red Gum is spread 

 over the remainder of the colony excepting in the higher ranges and on 

 certain coast tracts ». 



Therc is no doubt that in many cases where E. tereticornis and 

 E. rostrata grow in the same district, the timber of the former is 

 superior to that of the latter. As a practical instance of this M'' A. C. 

 Mountain infoi-med me that he will not use Murray Red Gum for 

 paving; he must hâve Gippsland Red Gum. This is in accordauce with 

 the law that very largely holds good, that timber grown in a moist 

 locality is inferior to that grown in a drier locality. Vice versa, in regard 

 to the comparative value of the timber of E. tereticornis and E. ros- 

 trata, those forms of E. tereticornis growing in damp situations (eg. the 

 Swamp Gum with small fruits andbroad leaves), hâve timber decidedly 

 inferior in value to that of E. rostrata. 



