408 THE LOEAXTHACEAE OF AUSTRALIA, iii., 



foot long." Of the numerous specimens of L. 'pendulws Sieber that I have 

 examined from four States, none of the leaves were more than 11 inches long. 

 The figure of L. longifoUus (Hook. Ic. PI. t. 880) is typical of Sieber's plant in 

 every character except for the length of the leaves, which (DC. Prod., iv., 295) 

 are 6-8 inches long in the type of L. pendulus. On the evidence before me I iim 

 not unmindful of the fact tiiat the length of the leaves is-largely influenced by 

 seasonal and climatic conditions, and is not always a stable morphological 

 character. 



Mueller commenting on this species (Report Burdekin Expedition, 1800, 13) 

 says: "Loranthns pendulus Sieber, ranges over the whole of Australia., forming 

 in different climatic zones, and whilst deriving nutriment from trees of many 

 different orders, showing most singular variations. The examination of a large 

 series of specimens in our collection leads to the conclusion that L. longifoUus 

 Hook., L. nutans A. Cunn., L. Cunninghamii A. Gray, L. canus F.v.M., L. Quan- 

 da/ng Lindl., L. congener Sieber, L. aurantiacus A. Cunn., L. nuiraculosus Miq., 

 L. Miquelii Lehm., and L. Melaleucae Lehm., are to be regarded- as varieties of 

 this plant." 



Looking at Mueller's statement in the light of my recent investigations, I 

 am of the opinion that some of the species mentioned by him are synonyms, for 

 instance, L. longifoUus Hook. = L. pendulus Sieber; L. nutans A. Cunn., and 

 L. canus F.v.M. = L. Quandang Lindl; while L. Cunninghamii A. Gray = L. 

 congener Sieber, and L. aurantiacus A. Cunn. is proved to be only a large form 

 of L. Miquelii Lehm. The same remarks apply to L. MMaieucae Lehm., and L. 

 miraculosus Miq., as sufficient evidence has not yet been produced to show whether 

 they can be kept apart as species or regarded as forms of One species. 



It appears to me quite problematical as to whether L. pendulus Sieber 

 should be looked upon as the parent plant from which those species enumerated 

 by Mueller had their origin. It is quite" reasonable to assume that their origin 

 is hovering between L. pendulus Sieber, L. Miquelii Lehm. and L. Quandang: 

 Lindl., but the question as to which is the oldest species is beyond comprehension 

 at present; the most widely diffused of all is L. Miquelii. 



Synonyms. — L. longifoUus Hook., Dendrophthoe pendulus G. Don. 

 The type is from Fort Jackson, which perhaps means (if we follow Sieber 

 who collected it in 1825) from Sydney to Hill Top, a distance of 69 miles by 

 rail or from Sydney to the Blue Mountains. I have examined a series of speci- 

 mens collected at various places in the Port Jackson District, as well as specimens 

 from the Blue Mountains and the Southern Tableland, and I cannot find any 

 sharp change in them; in fact they are uniformly constant in all essential charac- 

 ters, except perhaps that the Hornsby specimens ha,ve smaller and narrower 

 leaves than any collected in the above area; nevertheless, they are not far from 

 being typical, and can be regarded as being a little on the small side. 



It is not a very common species in the Port Jackson District, but is more 

 frequently met with in the mountain ranges away from the coast, although in 

 some parts of the South Coast it is fairly common. On the Blue Mountains it 

 is a striking feature of the forest vegetation, where it forms graceful pendulous 

 russet-brown shrubs, one to above five feet long on almost every species of 

 Eucalyptus, and also on other forest trees. 



Many of the records in various publications under L. pendulus Sieb. are 

 not referable to it, but, where iDossible, I ha.ve examined a number of tlie 

 specimens referred to and the corrections will be found under the various species 

 attributed to L. pendulus Sieb. The North Australian, South Australian and 

 Western Australian localities quoted by Bentham (B.F!., iii., 394) are in all 



