155 



4. "With E. goniantha, Turcz. 



In B.F1. iii, 248, Bentham speaks of a variety "with the calyx tapering into a 

 very short pedicel, as in E. goniantha, but smooth as in E. concolor. Doubtful 

 Island, Peninsula, and Cape Arid (Maxwell)." 



I leave the reference as I find it, as I have not seen the specimens referred 

 to, and the Director of Kew, under date 29th August, 1911, informs me that they 

 are not in that herbarium. Dor E. goniantha, Turcz., which is not closely allied 

 to E. concolor, see Plate 18, and p. 103, Vol. I, of this work. 



5. With E. deeipiens, Endl. 



I invite attention to the following two specimens, collected by Dr. L. Diels, 

 and distributed by him under the number 2,963. They were both collected at 

 Cranbrook, a few miles north of Albanv, on the Great Southern Railway. 



a. " 2-5 metres, cortice cinereo, pr. Cranbrook in arenosis fruticosis." This 

 particular specimen, in fruit only, is quite typical for E. deeipiens. Small sessile 

 fruits, with distinctly exsert valves. 



b. In fruit and bud. Fruits rather larger than the preceding specimen, and 

 all the leaves (of which there are fifty on my specimens), except one, lanceolate. 

 This particular leaf is as broad as that of 1 b of Plate 63. The curved buds are 

 those commonly seen in E. deeipiens, but the anthers are those of E. concolor. 

 They are not absolutely typical, but they are certainly much nearer to those of 

 typical E. concolor than they are to those of E. deeipiens. I therefore place this 

 specimen with E. concolor. 



As regards (a), I am on the horns of a dilemma. It is so typical for 

 E. deeipiens that no tyro would hesitate on the matter ; but if I place it with that 

 species, I am compelled to separate two specimens placed under the same number 

 by an experienced collector like Dr. Diels, and to say that this specimen shows that 

 E. deeipiens is indeterminable, except with flowers. 



At present the only character on which I can separate E. concolor from 

 E. deeipiens is on the anthers, which I have described elsewhere. 



Fremantle is the type locality for E. concolor, but all the specimens 

 collected by my friends and myself in that locality are E. deeipiens. 



I cannot see any difference in the juvenile foliage of the two species, nor in 

 the appearance of the trees as I saw them. But I did not find E. concolor as a 

 large tree as I did in the case of E. deeipiens. 



It is evident that E. concolor requires further investigation, and its relations 

 to E. deeipiens should be further ascertained. This is work to which I invite the 

 attention of my colleagues in the Western State. 



9664— D 



