335 



The figure he gives of it also makes it easy to recognize. At the" 

 time the tree was ako cultivated in the Garden of the Marine 

 at Toulon, and according to a note from M. Robert, then director 

 of this garden, he had received it direct from la Malmaison. 1 

 owe the communication of this note to M. Chabaud, naval botanist 

 of the St. Mandrier Garden, near Toulon [I have a specimen 

 from this garden. — J. H. M.], and it is this which has put me 

 in the way of recognizing the species» 



I nave no information as to the forestry value of this species ; 

 so far it is simply an ornamental garden tree (Naudin, 1st Mem., 

 413). 



Naudin practically repeats the above, with the following 



addition : — 



Following Mueller, E. diver sifolia, Bonpl., would be con^ 

 founded with E. santalifolia ("Euoalyptographia") ; however, the 

 species there described hardly agrees with the figure [it is really 

 E. pachyloma, as I have already stated. — J. H. M.], nor with 

 the description of thi6 last work, where, among other differences, 

 E. santalifolia is indicated as a mere shrub. But the species of this 

 genus are so variable that I would not yet like to pronounce as 

 to the identity or the non-identitv of these two species (2nd Mem., 

 50). 



5. I attach a translation of what Dr. Diels said, for 



completeness sake, but it does not help us much : — 



Mueller thought it (,E. pachyloma, Benth.) to be identical 

 with E. santalifolia. This opinion, however, so far is hardly 

 confirmed. The areas given by Mueller are widely separated, the 

 South Australian localities being more than a thousand miles dis- 

 tant from the Western Australian ones. I have not seen the 

 plants. — Diels, in Engler's Jahrb., xxxv., 442 (1905). 



6. The present writer, who has dealt with the species : 

 (a J Crit. Rev., vii., p. 197 (1905), where I included both 

 E. santalifolia and E. pachyloma in E. diversifolia ; (b) 

 in these Trans., xxxii., p. 279 (1908); (c) Journ. W.A. £Tat, 

 Hist. Soc., iii., p. 166 (Jan., 1911), where I stated, 

 "It is quite impossible to keep E. pachyloma as a synonym 

 of E. diversifolia." 



I travelled extensively in South Australia in 1907, and 

 E. diversifolia was deliberately investigated by me. Simi- 

 larly, when I made a prolonged tour of Western Australia in 

 1909, I made a special trip after E. pachyloma, as I con- 

 sidered it required further investigation. 



Mueller and I are quite in agreement in considering 

 E . diversifolia and E. santalifolia as conspecific, but he makes 

 the following extraordinary excuse for suppressing Bon- 

 pland's in favour of his own name : — 



: The name of E. diversifolia, given by Bonpland, had to be 

 discarded, although he described the species already in 1813, and 

 had it illustrated by Bessa simultaneously, because the plant as 

 defined by him represents that very young state in which, as in 

 most species of eucalyptus, the leaves pass from the broad form of 

 juvenile plants into the narrow shape of the leaves, normal for 



