337 



Some Morphological Notes. — Mr. Baker, p. 470, states 

 that "unfortunately, no one seems to have described the 

 'sucker,' or abnormal [why 'abnormal'? — J. H. M.] leaves of 

 E. santali folia, or, for the matter of that, E. diversifolia, so 

 it is difficult to understand how the latter name applies to 

 Mueller's tree, as the leaves are not diverse." Almost all 

 species of Eucalyptus show "diverse" leaves, the juvenile 

 leaves being different from the adult ones, and the number 

 of species in which the juvenile and adult leaves are 

 apparently not diverse is diminishing as additional material 

 is collected. In other words, the series "uniforme" and 

 "biforme" of Naudin, and the terms isoblastic or homoblastic 

 on the one hand, and heteroblastic on the other, used by 

 later authors, by degrees become relative and not absolute. 

 I collected juvenile leaves of E. diversifolia in South Aus- 

 tralia, and have perfect suites of them, but as they were 

 fairly depicted in Bessa's plate, I did not fully draw atten- 

 tion to them. 



The reason why I did not reproduce the plate in my 

 Crit. Rev., to which omission Mr. Baker draws attention, 

 was for reasons of expense, as it is a large folio, and I con- 

 sider that in reproducing the juvenile foliage and republishing 

 Bonpland's description I did all that could be expected 

 of me. 



But although the juvenile leaves of E. % diversifolia were 

 not formally described in the Crit. Rev., Mr. Baker has 

 ignored fig. 8 and fig. 8a of pi. xxxvi. of that work, in which 

 is depicted two pairs of juvenile leaves, collected by Mr. 

 Walter Gill in the Port Lincoln district. Do not these 

 describe them sufficiently? Compare fig. 8 with fig. 5, a pair 

 of juvenile leaves taken from Bessa's plate. The fig. 8a 

 shows an extreme form, for there is a marvellous amount of 

 variation in the juvenile leaves of this species. However, 

 since that time I have twice described the juvenile foliage, 

 viz., these Transactions, xxxii., p. 279, and Journ. W.A. 

 Nat. Hist. Soc, iii., p. 166. 



It remains now to categorically point out that Mr. Baker 

 has no justification for the conclusion in the latter part of 

 the following statement : — "Of the identity of E. santali- 

 folia, as now established, there can be no doubt, and as the 

 chemical data are made on that species, there is no 

 alternative but to retain that name for the result of this 

 investigation." 



The flattened or horizontal rim in E. diversifolia is a 

 character, although there is a tendency to convexity of the 

 rim, which undoubtedly led Mueller into his mistake of con- 

 fusing the species with E. pachyloma, a species in which this 



