AFFINITIES. 





1. With E. goniocalyx F.v.M. 



In the angularity of the buds are traces of a resemblance to E. goniocalyx, but as these mature in 

 the friiit the angles disappear, but traces remain and form distinct convex lidges extending from the rim 

 to the base, and as one is generally much more pronounced than the others, it is upon this character that 

 the specific name is bistowed. (Original description.) 



Many years ago (1902) I held the opinion that an affinity was with E. goniocayx, 

 but thought it was E. Maideni F.v.M., as shown in the next paragraph. 



2. With E. Maideni F.v.M. 



I have been favoured with an excellent series of specimens from Mr. Rodway, and they match 

 E. Maideni F.v.M., from a type locality (Colombo, Lyttleton, N.S.W.) exactly. Whether E. Maideni 

 is an extreme form of E. globulus or not is worthy of further examination, and Mr. Rodway's specimens 

 and observations {infra) are worthy of note in connection with any experiments to reproduce certain 

 species from cultivation of existing forms. My present view is that E. Maideni is as near midway as can 

 be between E. globulus and E. goniocalyx, and therefore I am unable to reduce it to a form of either. If 

 my determination is correct, and I have no doubt about it in my own mind, then another species is added 

 to the flora of Tasmania. (Maiden in Rep. Aust. Assoc. Adv. Science (Hobart), ix, 374 (1902) ). 



While in 1902 I had considered this a form of E. Maideni, I had dropped this view in Proc. Linn. 

 N.S.W., xxx, 499 (1905), and my three years later opinion should have been quoted by Mcssis. Baker 

 and Smith. I came round to Mr. Rodway's view that it was a hybrid, and added, ''Some of the juvenile 

 foliage in my possession is coarseT than any I have seen in E. viminalis, and I think that Mr. Rodway's 

 statement that this form only occurs in plantations of E. viminalis growing with E. globulus is a sufficient 

 explanation." From that day to this I understood that the specimens came from a plantation, and in 

 view of the fact that Messrs. Baker and Smith state that only two trees were found, they require further 

 examination, which I will give on my next visit to Tasmania. (Maiden in Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas., xsdx, 

 1914). 



3. With E. viminalis Labill. 



Mr. Rodway is, however, of opinion that his specimens belong to E. viminalis, and he proposes 

 to call the variety macrocarpa, and the remarks of such an experienced observer require the most careful 

 attention. I am of opinion that the sucker-leaves are of E. Maideni rather than E. viminalis. The 

 locality is Domain, Hobart, and Mount Nelson Range, and the plant is worthy of further inqiury. 



Habit and leaves as in typical viminalis to rather more erect, and leaves slightly larger. Mature 

 bud 1-5 cm. long by 8 mm. Operculum sub-hemispheric to conical, smooth. Fiuit of the tvpe only 

 1*2 cm. diameter, often obscurely 2-ribbcd. 



This form I have only found in plantations of E. viminalis growing with E. globulus. I take it to be a 

 hybrid. Of six seedlings grown from seed of the same tree, four were closely approximating E. viminalis, 

 one E. globulus, and the sixth intermediate. (Maiden, loc. cit.). 



Three years later I wrote — 



E. viminalis Labill. var. macrocarpa Rodway (in his " Tasmanian Flora, " p. 57 (1903) (E. globulus 

 Labill. x viminalis Labill.). 



Some time ago I expressed the opinion that the above form is identical with E. Maideni F.v.M. 

 Having received better seedlings from Mr. Rodway than I originally possessed, I incline to Mr. Rodway's 

 view that it is nearer viminalis, and I also accept the view, which I resisted at the time, that it is a hybrid 



