837 



was struck by the resemblance to E. neglecta in several 

 respects. Professor Ewart kindly compared the latter with 

 specimens of E. viscida in the National Herbarium of Vic- 

 toria, and writes: — ''The specimen of E. neglecta seems to 

 come very close to, if not to be the same thing as E. viscida, 

 Endl. For complete certainty, however, a fruiting specimen 

 would be necessary in order to see if the characteristic enlarge- 

 ment of the calyx-lobes takes place." Later he wrote: — 

 "The Elder Expedition specimen named E. Duttonii in our 

 herbarium seem.s to me to belong to E. viscida, and shows 

 the characteristic enlargement of the calyx-lobes." It should 

 be observed, however, that the ovary of E. viscida is 

 described by Endlicher as villous, and is so depicted in 

 Mueller's plate (which is said to be drawn from one of 

 Endlicher's specimens out of the Botanic Museum of Vienna), 

 while the ovary of E . neglecta is glabrous and shining. The 

 specimen from Indulkana Springs shows that the corolla may 

 attain a length of 30 mm. E. viscida is mentioned in 

 Mueller and Tate's report of Tietkens' expedition into Central 

 Australia, 1889 (Trans. Roy. Soc, S.A., xiii., 105) as having 

 been gathered between Mount Connor and Basedow Range. 

 None of Tietkens' specimens are in the Tate Herbarium ; they 

 are probably in Melbourne, and I do not know whether Pro- 

 fessor Ewart refers to them in his above remarks, or to 

 specimens of E. viscida obtained from Western Australia, 

 where the type was gathered by Roe. It is quite possible 

 that Tietkens' Central Australian plant is E: neglecta rather 

 than E. viscida. Since writing the above I have received the 

 following reply from the Director of the Royal Botanic 

 Gardens, Kew, to whom a specimen of E . neglecta was sent : — 

 "There are no specimens of Eremophila viscida, Endl., at 

 Kew, but judging from Endlicher's original deiscription, from 

 that given by Bentham in his 'Flora Australiensis,' and from 

 the figure published by F. von Mueller, it is not the species 

 now described and figured as E . neglecta. In particular the 

 glabrous ovary and style of E . neglecta and the shape of the 

 anterior corolla-lobe are sufficient to distinguish the species 

 from E . viscida, Endl. The specim.en of E . neglecta has not 

 been matched with any specimen preserved in the Kev/ Her- 

 barium." [Found as far west as the Musgrave Ranges.] E. 

 Latrohei, F. v. M. ^Musgrave Ranges. At Lambinna Soakage 

 and 15 miles west of Indulkana Springs were also gathered 

 specimens of the hoary variety first described by Mueller and 

 Tate as E. TiethensH, but afterwards recognized as a "broad- 

 leaved, canescent variety" of E. Latrohei. [Often found 

 grovv^ing amongst the rocks on the sides of the ranges, and 

 sometimes attaining the height of 10 or 12 feet.] E . Gilesii, 



