369 
to definitely decide if the New South Wales plants are iden- 
tical with those from Tasmania. Bentham also quotes Wim- 
mera, Victoria, as a locality for this species, which he says 
“has much shorter stamens,” but as I have not seen the 
Melaleuca halmaturorum, F. v. M., et Miq., in Ned. 
Kruidk. Arch., iv., 122 (1856). The following is a copy of 
the original description :— 
“Melaleuca halmaturorum, Ferd. Müll, MSS. Foliis 
oppositis densis hinc nunc sub uaternis patule erectis sub- 
imbricatis linearibus antice planis, acutis vel obtusiusculis, non 
mucronatis, 13-2 lin. longis, 1-3 latis enerviis, glaucis, glabris, 
petiolis adpressis, bracteis spicarum ovatis acutiusculis tubum 
calycis aequantibus; capsulis calycis tubo ovoideo-truncato 
connatis trilocularibus. 
Ad flumen Three- Wells River insulae Halmaturorum 
(H. Heuzenroeder). ere. 
“Habitus M. curvifoliae, differt foliorum situ, usque 
Val Y tubePoulifera (M. tuberculifera, F Müll., 
Herb.), foliis ramorum majoribus fere semipollicaribus, 3 lin. 
latis, acutiusculis vel obtusis. In Nova Holl australi ad 
ül.)." 
t 
It will be seen from Mueller's description that he had 
from “Gmina”? Bay and Holdfast Bay. Through the kindness 
of Professor Ewart I have examined specimens of the original 
plant, which are labelled as follows:—‘‘M. halmaturorum, 
F.v.M. Ex insulá. Halmaturorum ad fl., 3 wells-river. H 
Heuzenroeder, November, 1849.’’ 
. [I would suggest that the ‘“‘Gmina Bay” mentioned above 
is a misprint for ‘‘Guichen Bay." e plant in question 
grows at Robe, and Mueller collected in this district during 
