305 



to say whether this specimen is eugenioides or piperita, but the buds, bark, and 

 timber display a closer teudency towards typical piperita, under which species I 

 have accordingly arranged it. See fig. 8, Plate 45. 



2. With E. pilularis, Sm. 



It is clear, on reading Mueller's description of E. piperita in " Eucalypto- 

 graphia," that he has not had typical New South Wales specimens in his mind, for 

 he describes it as having both " stem and branches covered with fibrous outside 

 °rrev and rou°'h bark," and he mentions, as one of the means of distinaaiishino; it 

 from E. pilularis, "its rough bark extending to the branches (Pachyphloise)," 

 whereas the typical E. piperita is only a " half-barked " tree like E. pilularis. 



In the same work, under E. pilularis, he lays emphasis on the globular 

 fruits of E. piperita, in contradistinction to those of E. pilularis. The matter is 

 referred to at p. 300. 



At Oatley, George's River, near Sydney (J. H. Camfield), we have a form 

 apparently normal piperita in every respect, except that the fruits are very coarse 

 and large, thick-rimmed, and nearly pilular. They certainly show affinity to E. 

 pilularis, for which the fruits could be readily mistaken. I would call them an 

 intermediate form. 



3. With E. obliqua, L'Herit. 



I mention these two species together because they are so referred to in 

 " Eucalyptographia," but Avould point out that they have really very little in 

 common. Reference to the shape of the buds, the venation of the leaves, and the 

 coarseness of the foliage of E. obliqua alone show that the two species have no very 

 close affinity. 



