163 



3. With E. coceifera Hook. f. 



(the) buds and fruit (of E. Muelleri) are practically similar to those of E. coceifera^ 



and till one was fortunate enough to secure flowers and detect the parallel anther-cells, the distinctness 

 would not suggest itself. (L. Rodway, 1894, p. 51.) 



Compare with Part V, Plate 28, of the present work. There is a general 

 similarity in the mature leaves, the veins of E. coceifera, however, form a more acute 

 angle with the midrib; they also have hooked tips. The juvenile leaves of 

 E. coceifera are sufficiently different from those of E. Muelleri. The anthers are, as 

 Mr. Rodway has pointed out, quite different. I do not agree that the buds and fruit 

 of E. coceifera are similar to those of E. Muelleri, unless there is a much greater 

 amount of variety in the buds and fruits of E. coceifera than I have depicted. 



In Plate 28 the buds are in more than threes and appear quite different, while 

 the fruits have no exserted valves, and differ in other respects. 



I may point out that the lettering of some of the figures on Plate 28 is not 

 correct. 2a and 2b belong to E< coceifera, as well as 3, 4, and 5. 



4. With E. ovata Labill. 



The resemblance to E. ovata is quite sufficient to be noticed. Compare 

 Part XXVII, Plate 114. It is most noticeable in the larger fruited forms, see figure 2 

 of that Plate (my suggested var. grandiflora) . The anthers and mature foliage 

 resemble each other, the juvenile foliage less so. The fruits of E. ovata are in more 

 than three, more pedicellate, and more top-shaped and less angled. 



5. With E. alpina Lindl. 



There is a superficial resemblance between these two species. They have 

 coriaceous foliage, almost greasy in lustre, rugose buds, and fruits which though 

 smaller in E. Muelleri, have some resemblance. E. Muelleri may be a large tree; 

 E. alpina is always a scrambling small tree, with reniform (though not typical) 

 anthers. 



