■ 469 



but Maiden (Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Aus., vol. xxxii., p. 285) 

 states that a specimen in the University Herbarium of Ade- 

 laide, labelled by Tate "E. macrorhyncha is 



E . obliqua, L'Her. If E . macrorhyncha has been admitted 

 to the Flora of South Australia on the authority of that 

 specimen, it should be removed." We, however, have 

 received a specimen from Mount Templeton (C. N. Grenfell) 

 which is undoubtedly E . macrorhyncha . 



Its botanical and chemical characters are given in our 

 work, "Eucalypts and Essential Oils/' p. 146. 



3. Eucalyptus santalifolia, F. v. M. 

 ''White Mallee." 



This species was described by Baron von Mueller in 

 Trans. Vict. Inst., 1854. Bentham, in his "Flora Austra- 

 liensis," vol. iii., 1866, recognized its validity as a 

 species, and Mueller in his "Eucalyptographia," 1879, gives a 

 figure. J. H. Maiden, in his "Critical Revision of the 

 Eucalypts," suppresses it as a synonym under E. diversifolia,. 

 Bonpland, which Bentham regarded as a variety of E. 

 vminaHs ("'Flora Australiensis," iii., p. 240). It is apparent 

 from this that the systematic placing of this tree is now 

 surrounded with difficulty. 



Mueller, in his "Eucalyptographia," under his E . san- 

 talifolia, synonymizes Bonpland's E. diversifolia, remarking' 

 that "as the plant defined by Bonpland represents that very 

 young state ... in which the leaves pass from the 

 broad form of juvenile plants into the narrow shape of the 

 leaves, . . . normal for adult trees, the name had to be 

 discarded." The figure illustrating Bonpland's plant, which 

 Mueller states was done by Massa, we have not seen. 



As Bentham places Bonpland's E '.- diversifolia under E. 

 viminalis, the inference is that there must- have been some 

 resemblance to that species, and then, in spite of this, we 

 have Mueller bringing it under his E. santalifolia. Bentham 

 fully describes E . santalifolia, F. v. M. (vol. iii., p. 206), and 

 does not allude to its resemblance to E. <li vers? folia, and he 

 probably saw specimens of both. 



Bentham, when mentioning this species (E . santalifolia) 

 under E. viminalis, states that "the flowers are rather 

 numerous in the umbel and the fruit large." Now six 

 flowers are the most we have seen in E. santalifolia ; Mueller's 

 figure shows onlv three at the most. The leaves, at least, 

 and certainly not the fruits, can hardly be said to resemble 

 those of E . viminalis, so that it appears Bentham must have 

 had material differing from E. santalifolia, as now under- 

 stood, when he matched E . diversifolia with E . viminalis. 



