12 



In a report to the Victorian Government Mr. A. W. Howitt says : " The Eed Gum, as I have noted, 

 is of two varieties which are distinguishable by slight botanical differences and by the usually larger size of 

 the leaves of seedlings and young saplings in the Gippsland form (E. tereticornis). I have placed this first 

 because I have reason to believe that the timber is harder and denser than that of the Murray River Eed 

 Gum (E. rostrata). The Gippsland Red Gum is confined almost entirely to that part of the colony; I have 

 • inly observed it elsewhere in the extreme north-eastern district. The Murray River Red Gum is spread 

 over the remainder of the colony, excepting in the higher ranges and on certain coast tracts." 



There is no doub' that in many cases where E. tereticornis and E. rostrata grow in the same district, 

 the timber of the former is superior to that of the latter. As a practical instance of this Mr. A. C. Mountain, 

 City Surveyor of Melbourne, informed me that he will not use Murray Red Gum for paving; he must have 

 ( Jippsland Red Gum. This is in accordance with the law that very largely holds good —that timber grown 

 in a moist locality is inferior to that grown in a drier locality. Vice versd, in regard to the comparative 

 value of the timber of E. tereticornis and E. rostrata, those forms of E. tereticornis growing in damp situations 

 (e.g., the Swamp Gum with small fruits and broad leaves), have timber decidedly inferior in value to that 

 of E. rostrata. (Maiden in Bull, tie VHerbier Boissier, Seconde Serie, ii, p. 578, 1902.) 



I have republished my observations of fifteen years ago as I think they will be 

 useful, and they require little amendment to-day. The " Swamp Gum " of the last 

 sentence is E. amplifolia Naudin. 



E. rostrata will be dealt with in Part xxxiii and in both Parts xxxi and xxxii are 

 a number of species closely allied to E. tereticornis, and therefore to E. rostrata. 



2. With E. resinifera Sm. 



The common form (of E. tereticornis) with a long operculum, when in very young bud, requires some 

 caution in distinguishing it from the rostrate varieties of E. sideroptdoia and E. resinifera. The venation 

 of the leaf is then the best guide. (B. Fl. iii, 242.) 



In the old collections a number of cases occur in which E. tereticornis is labelled 

 E. resinifera. Following is an instance : — 



" Eucalyptus resinifera, H.B.C., from New Holland," in Herb. Cant., ex Herb. 

 Lindl. In the above label " H.B.C." probably indicated '' Herb. Cunningham." 

 Loudon and other old authors depict E. tereticornis under the name E. resinifera. 



As to the similarities between E. resinifera and E. tereticornis, reference may be 

 made to p. 213, Part XXX, and to figures in Plates 124 and 125. Sometimes the 

 opercula of the two species are so much alike as to necessitate caution, but the leaves 

 of E. resinifera have finer and more uniformly parallel veins than those of E. tereticornis, 

 while E. resinifera has a thick, fibrous bark, and E. tereticornis a smooth one. The 

 confusion of the old botanists arose from herbarium specimens, which were rarely accom- 

 panied by notes on the habit of the tree, &c. 



3. With E. punctata DC. 



It has already been observed, p. 5 of the present Part, and p. 196 of Part 

 XXIX, that E. punctata DC. is synonymous with E. tereticornis Sm. var. brachycorys 

 Benth. 



Both are erect trees, E. punctata being the more erect of the two. The former 

 has, however, that sand-papery surface of the -bark, already described (p. T95), which 

 is at once seen to be different to the smoother and more shiny bark of E. tereticornis. 



