292 



In Part XIX of the present work, I have tried to clear up the confusion, 

 chiefly and quite pardonahly, caused hy Mueller in regard to his own species 

 E. clceophora and E. goniocalyx. I could give other instances of amended 

 descriptions, both in Eucalypts and in other Australian plants, an important object 

 being not to multiply names unnecessarily. 



Neither Hooker's original description nor his amended one in Flora Tasmania 

 applies exclusively to E. obliqua or E. gigantea. There is more to go upon in the 

 Flora Tasmania. 



First we have Gunn's specimens Nos. 1,095, 1,104, 1,106, 1,905, 1,966, which 

 are as follows : — 



1,905 is E. obliqua. Some of the material under this number may be 



E. gigantea. 

 1,104 is E. obliqua. 



1,104 (second specimen) is E. gigantea. 

 1,106 is E. obliqua. 

 ] ,965 is E. gigantea. 

 1,966 is E. gigantea. 



I have re-examined the above specimens, with some additional material ; 

 I had previously examined them for the present work (I, 178). 



Glaucousness is by far the commoner in E. gigantea, but it occurs also in 

 E. obliqua. 



Then as to the use of the terms " Stringybark " and " Stringybark Gum," 

 as applied by Hooker. E. gigantea is often known as Stringybark, although it is 

 more frequently applied to E. obliqua. Indeed, perhaps the commonest name for 

 the former is " Gum-topped Stringybark," the branches being more or less smooth. 

 The two trees often carry the same vernaculars, especially when not fully grown. 



Undoubtedly the two species are closely allied. Some years ago I made 

 E. gigantea E. obliqui var. alpina, and there is much to be said in favour of that 

 view. According to the opinions of various people as to what amount of difference 

 constitutes a species as distinct from a variety, so one may look upon it as a variety 

 of E. obliqua, and another as a distinct species. I think it is better to look upon this 

 tree as a distinct species, but I came to that conclusion very gradually. I have 

 specimens which most closely connect the two species, whose affinities are not so 

 obvious from typical forms. 



E. gigantea generally succeeds E. obliqua in alpine situations; its bark is 

 whiter, more matted (Box-like) — that is to say, less fibrous— while the branches are 

 smoother and more glaucous, the opercula less pointed, the fruits more pear-shaped, 

 and the foliage more succulent and more pleasantly aromatic. 



