210 THE LORANTHACEAE OF AUSTRALIA, ii., 



hastilis, and on dead wood and leaves lying on the ground. AlthoughJ germina- 

 tion takes place, the young seedlings do not adapt themselves to alii their hosts ; 

 in fact, none survived on the objects mentioned above, which demonstrates clearly 

 that more favourable conditions are necessary for the reproduction of the species 

 and if these are forthcoming, the rapid spread of the plant is inevitable. 



Much confusion has resulted in placing (L.) P. eucalyptifolius (Sieb.) as a 

 synonym of (L.) P. celastroides (Sieb.) by Bentham (B.FL, I.e.). To those 

 familiar with the two plants, Bentham's decision, which no doubt was influenced 

 by those of Mueller and Gray, has long been regarded as unsatisfactory. Mueller 

 (Report Burdekin Expedition, 13) definitely states that "L. eucalyptioides DC. 

 is, as suspected by Professor Asa Gray, referable to L. celastroid^," and he 

 afterwai-ds figured both species (Plants of Victoria, i., Plate 30) as Loranthus 

 eucalyptioides DC. The figure on the right hand side of Plate 30 is P. eucalypti- 

 folius (Sieb.); that on the left is P. celastroides (Sieb.) Eichl. A glance at) the 

 plate will at once disclose the difference in the shape and venation of the leaves 

 of these two species. The leaves of P. eucalyptifolius have the appearance of' 

 being uninerved or nerveless, and are considerably longer than those of P. celas^ 

 troides which are short and broad, shortly petiolate and penninerved. In Mueller's 

 "Key, Plants of Victoria," the species are again mixed; the lower figure of Tab. 

 66, is P. eucalyptifolius and the upper figure is P. celastroides. 



A flowering branch of P. eucalyptifolius with a pair of depauperate leaves 

 appears in Kunth (Bluten Biologie, viii., i.. Fig. 45, 255) as P. celastroides, 

 which is said to have been reproduced from Engler et Prantl, Pflanzenfam.; 

 apparently Engler has followed Mueller in his "Plants of Victoria." The leaves 

 figured by Ettingshausen (Uber die Blattskelette der Loranthaceen, Tab. xiii., 

 Figs. 11-13) ,are all deformed, and therefore, the venation is abnormal. In the 

 ease ofl imperfect or irregularly shaped leaves, the venation is rarely the same 

 as in well developed or proportioned leaves. A i-upture to the median nerve in 

 its initial stages will gTeatly change its natural contour and, by the time the leaf 

 reaches maturity, its effect is apparent throughout the whole system of venation. 



Deformity in the leaves of the Loranthaceae is very common, and most 

 species readily lend themselves to insectival disfigtiration, and also to ecological 

 conditions and, because of these chai-acteristic anomalies, it is not difiieult to 

 match the diagrams already quoted with specimens that are almost fac-simile. 

 On Tab. xix., Fig. 2 (Ettingshausen, I.e.) a more perfect leaf is depicted, which 

 is distinctly triplinerved. 



P. eucalyptifolius is more polymorphous than P. celastroides, apparently the 

 result of environment rather than racial distinction. Many plants of this species 

 are very frequently found with large thick oblong to obovate leaves, of which 

 some are strongly veined and are suggestive of P. celastroides, but when closely 

 examined the venation and texture are entirely different from those of P. celas- 

 troides. It is not uncommon to see two different kinds of leaves on the same 

 plant; they are very often due to old and young plants growing together, or 

 sometimes the result of seasonal growth. 



Those who are familiar with the versatile section of our Loranthaceae will 

 admit there is a great similarity in the flowers, and it is specially so with 

 Phrygilanthus eucalyptifolius and P. celastroides. In the case of these two 

 species, the venation of the leaves presents a sharp line of demarcation between 

 them, and there are other characters of differentiation, as the following tableS: 

 show. 



