274 



Folia supra modum inflexibilia, valde polymorpha. Nam praeter basale quoddam, monstrositatc 

 forte, breve, transverse ovatum, in peduneulum angustatum, infima m 2' 4" lg., <* 1' It., sequentia 3' 

 lg., 1' It., ideoque oblonga, superiora, in caule 2' 6" lg., 8" It., in rarno informs oblongo-lanceolatum, superius 

 oblongo-ovatum obtusum, etc. (Verz. Pfl. Nachtr., ii, 114.) 



The description in DC. Prod, iii, 221, is: — 



Foliis rigidis duris, infimis sessilibus oppositis ovatis subcordatis obtusis, superionbus petiolatis, 

 Sparsis lanceolatis acutis subapiculatis, caule ramisque teretibus. In Nova-Hollandia. Flores fructusque 

 ign. A:i eadem ac E. divarsifoHa. 



Mueller (" Eucalyptographia " under E. pulverulenta) says: — " E. rigida of Count 

 Hoffmannsegg's Verzeichniss der Pflanzen-Kulturen, 114 (1826), is probably referable 

 to E. pulverulenta.'' f This is but a surmise, and there are no specimens in the Melbourne 

 Herbarium to back up such an opinion. The word " rigidis " does not specially apply 

 t} E. pulverulenta, while the words "sessilibus oppositis o"vatis subcordatis obtusis" 

 apply to that and other species with more or less correctness. 



There are specimens in Herb. Vindob. bearing the following label: — "Eucalyptus 

 rigida, Hoffmannsegg, Nov. Holl. Ferd. Bauer, Hb. Bauer," which are identical with 

 Brown's South Head road plant, which again is identical with Sieber's No. 473 (E. 

 rigida, Sieb.) = E. obtusiflora, DC. 



E. rigida, Sieb., PI. Exs. (Sieber's No. 473), from Port Jackson, is E. obtusiflora, 

 DC, according to Bentham (B.F1. iii, 205). I have specimens of the type, and concur. 



" To E. slrkla belongs furthermore E. rvjiia of Sieber's collections No. 473, although united by 

 Bentham with E. obtusiflora, but the latter, according to leaves from the original specimen kejjt at Geneva 

 and forwarded to me by M. Alphonse dc Candollc, proves it completely distinct from E. rijida." (Mueller, 

 in Eucalypti) jr a phia under E. stellulata.) 



I have already stated that I have specimens of Sieber's No. 473 (with the original 

 labels still adherent), which is the plant referred to by De Candolle in the Prodromus, 

 and it is a common Sydney plant known to every Sydney botanist. 



Sieber's No. 473 (E. rigida, Sieb.) is the plant we have recognised for many years 

 as E. obtusiflora, DC, and I venture to say that the drawing in Mem. Myrt., PI. 10 

 (E. obtusiflora, DC), is a good drawing. 



Mueller also labelled stricta var. angustifolia, E. rigida. This is E. apiculata, 

 Baker and Smith, and is a different plant. I think, therefore, Brown's name must be 

 dropped. To what extent he circulated it in herbaria I do not know. 



Hoffmannsegg's name must be abandoned because of its uncertainty, while 

 Sieber's name rigida can only claim the date 1828, the year of publication of DC. Prod. iii. 



