341 



based on Mueller, even earlier (B. Fl., iii., p. 215). As Mr. 

 Baker does not quote the specimens seen by him in the Tate 

 Collection, Adelaide University, I cannot follow him, but 

 (apart from specimens undoubtedly bicolor) I have a note 

 that two specimens examined by me in the Tate Collection, 

 and labelled "largiflorens" are really Mr, Baker's intertexta, 

 a species widely distributed in South Australia, which Mr. 

 Baker entirely omits. The two specimens to which I refer 

 are: (a) Mount Illbillie, Everard Ranges (R. Helms, Elder 

 Expedition, June 5, 1891), recorded by Mueller and Tate as 

 E. largiflorens in these Transactions, xvi., p. 358; (b) Gosse 

 Range (Revs. Schwarz and Schultze), received from Melbourne 

 Herbarium. There is a third specimen seen by Tate which I 

 have imperfectly cited in my notes. 



8. E. ovata, Labill. 

 Synonym of E. acervula, Hook. f. I can only ask my 

 readers to examine the evidence at Crit. Rev., vol. iii., part 7 

 (part xxvii.), for themselves,, consult Labillardiere's plate 

 and description, and make careful tours in South Australia, 

 and stand in front of the trees themselves. I have no 

 objection to Mr. Baker's criticism at p. 481. 



9. E. leucoxylon, F. v. M. 

 No South Australian species was revised by me more 

 carefully than this, and I must ask a reference to Crit. Rev., 

 xii., p. 88, which Mr. Baker omits. I spared no pains to get 

 at the literature and at the types, while there are many 

 figures on pi. lvi. I had many conversations both with the 

 late Mr. J. Ednie Brown and Mr. Walter Gill on this species, 

 and on a long tour the latter pointed out to me the various 

 local forms. My conclusions are set out at p. 92. Mr. Baker 

 superficially deals with the species at p. 488 of the paper 

 under consideration. 



10. E. CLADOCALYX, F. V. M. 



This species was described in Linnaea, xxv., p. 388 

 (1852), and the description is quite in order. The description 

 was repeated in Ned. Kruidk. Archief., iv., p. 135 (1856), 

 and again in Walpers' Annales botanices systematicae, iv., 

 p. 825 (1857). Then, furtively, Mueller redescribed it in 

 Fragm., ii., p. 43, under the name of E. corynocalyx. I say 

 furtively because he did not mention that the species had 

 been already described three times in difficultly accessible 

 works. He mentions the references, but not cladocalyx, and 

 it is not to be found in the Index. I drew attention to this 

 violation of the laws of nomenclature in Proc. Linn. Soc. 

 N.S. Wales, xxix., p. 76*8 (1904).. E. cladocalyx is un- 

 doubtedly the original name. 



