RANGE. 



Millv's Soak, and about -4 miles east of Nannine, September. 1903 (\V. V. 

 Fitzgerald). The localities are in the Murchison district of Western Australia. 



Sn f;ir as observed, the new plant is confined to calcaieous areas, with a permanent supply of fresh 

 water at shallow depths. It appears to reproduce readily fioni seeds, suckers freely, and is apparently 

 a moderately f;i st growtr. Roughly, it covers an area of 5 square miles at Millv's Soak, and about 4 square 

 mile a easl of Nannine. Both areas have in yeais past been largely drawn on for use in the various mines, 

 and for fuel, and aie now practically denuded of all matuicd examples. In the first-named locality the 

 iea is associated with E. microtkeca F.v.M., in places being almost superseded by that species. Ntar 

 Nannine the accompanying congener consists of irregularly grown examples of E. rostrata Schlecht. The 

 presence of these Eucalypts offers a pleasing variation to the monotony of the giejish-foliaged " Mulga " 

 (Acaciffi), which cover a vast proportion of these districts. It may be remarked that the so-called *' White 

 Gum " at .Mill, -• Soak is the E. microtheca F.v.M., and the " Flooded Gum " cast of Nannine is E. rostrata 

 Schlecht. partly. (Original description.) 



AFFINITIES. 



1. With E. foecunda Schauer. 



The new species constitutes one of the " Flooded Gums,'' or the " York Gum " of the Cue and Nannine 

 mining districts. In cortical characters, the crooked nature of the trunk and in the wood is not very diffeunt 

 from that of the true " York Gum " {E. foecunda Schauer, var. loiophcba), but the foliage, flowers, and fruit 

 are very different. (Original description.) 



2. With E. incrassata Labill. 



In the latter characteristics (flowers and fruit) it more closely approximates J?, incrassata Labill., 

 and differs chiefly from that species in habit, bark, and in the calyx lid being broader than the tube and 

 conspicuously ribbed. (Original description.) 



In the sain? Journal, iii (January. 1911), I wrote : — ■ 



In my opinion this is a vai iety of E. incrassata. The juvenile leaves are as nearly as poes ible the same 

 as ill isc of v.ir. dumosa collected by me at Dongarra. The Dongarra trees are large, so are those of the same 

 sp;cicsat Kangaroo Island, South Australia. The Milly's Soak trees are exceptionally large for E. incrassata, 

 so aie those of the tun 1, • i ; IS I have quoted. The timbers of the two species appear to be similar. 



The fruits arc thos* of E. incrassata, while the ribs of the opcreula are characteristic of those of 

 A', incrassata. 



I shall be glad if any correspondent can favour me with flowers, but at preECril I Ece no grounds 

 for sepaiaiing it from the protean and widely-diffused E. incrassata labill. 



.'5. With E. dumosa A. Cunn. 



In the last paragraph, under E. incrassata, I really referred to E. dumosa, for 

 many years, by Bentham and others, included in E. incrassata. The two species are 

 very close (see Part IV, p. 97, Plate 16, and Part XXXY11I. p. 223), and some botanists 

 may be unwilling to separate them. The buds and fruits of E. stfiaticalys are larger, 

 and the- pedicels more distinct, but I cannot find that the leaves and floral organs are 

 specifically different from those of E. dumosa. I give it the benefit of the doubt at 

 present, because of its geographical distribution. 





