339 



abundant between Port Lincoln and Lake Wangary, and 

 described juvenile leaves and made other morphological 

 references. 



Proceeding further west, we come to Port Elliston 

 (specimens from Dr. R. S. Rogers), about 100 miles west 

 of Port Lincoln. The locality, Venus Bay (quoted B. FL, 

 iii., p. 206), for E. santalifolia, is the bight formed about the 

 mouth of Anderson Inlet, and is some miles further on. It 

 is the nearest recorded locality towards Western Australia, 

 unless the following locality (also Eyre Peninsula) should be 

 nearer : — 



Minnipa, Eyre Peninsula ("Soap Mallee"). "Some say 

 the name is given because the wood is soft and rotten ; but 

 others, and they are more likely correct, because of the soapy 

 appearance of the stem and branches. Not very plentiful" 

 (W. J. Spafford). 



The specimen labelled U E. viminalis, var. diversifolia" 

 (No. 8, p. 201, part vii., Crit. Rev.), came from Guichen 

 Bay, according to the late Mr. J. G. Luehmann, late 

 Government Botanist of Victoria. See also B. FL, iii., p. 

 206, where Bentham (following Mueller) records E. santali- 

 folia from Guichen Bay. Guichen Bay has on its southern 

 shore the township of Robe, which is the most southerly 

 South Australian locality known to me, and the nearest to 

 the only recorded Victorian locality (Cape Nelson). I have 

 specimens of E. diversifolia from Robe (C. D. Black, through 

 J. M. Black). 



2. E. odorata, Behr. 



At p. 472 Mr. Baker quotes me as writing of this species 

 in Crit. Rev., vol. ii., part i., p. 26, as well as Trans. Roy. 

 Soc. S. Austr., 1903, where he (the present writer) "goes 

 fully into the synonymy of the species. With most of this 

 latter synonymy we are not in accord, especially placing 

 E . Lansdowniana [should be Lansdownearia. — J. H. M.] under 

 E. odorata." 



I have two courteous protests to make here. One is, 

 Mr. Baker's method of quotation, the volume and page of 

 the present Transactions not being cited. I have written 

 on E. odorata in these Transactions, xxvii., p. 240 (1903). 

 He omits reference to my further notes on E. odorata in 

 xxxii., p. 281 (1908). Secondly, the date of the part of the 

 Crit. Rev. quoted by Mr. Baker is 1910, and without going 

 into the question as to whether my 1903 work is modified by 

 my 1910 work (I have not collated them), I claim to be 

 judged by my latest utterance on a given subject. As, with 

 one exception, he does not state which of "most of this latter 

 synonymy" he does not agree with, I cannot be expected to 

 solve the problem. 



