84 



DESCRIPTION. 



CLXXI. E. pachyloma Benth. 



In B. Fl. iii, 237 (1866). 



The description will be found at Vol. 1, p. 200, of the present work, and need not be 

 repeated here. I there looked upon it as a synonym of E. diversifolia Bonpl., a view I 

 abandoned {Journ. W.A. Nat. Hist. Soc. iii, p. 166, Jan., 1911 ) after my visit to Western 

 Australia in 1909. 



Since writing this paper I have ascertained that Mueller's plate of E. santali- 

 folia F.v.M. in the " Eucalyptographia " is E. pachyloma Benth. 



As E. diversifolia, E. santalifolia and E. pachyloma, have been very much con- 

 fused, the following statement may be useful. 



E. diversifolia Bonpl. (E. santalifolia, F.v.M.). 

 The writers who have dealt with this species are : — 



1. Bonpland, who first described it under the name of E. diversifolia in 1813,* 

 and his descriptive account is reproduced in my " Critical Revision of the Genus 

 Eucalyptus " (hereinafter called Grit. Rev.), Part vii, p. 197. 



2. Mueller, who in 1855 redescribed the species under the name of E. santalifolia 

 (see Crit. Rev. vii, p. 199). In his " Eucalyptographia " he figures E. pachyloma Benth. 

 as his E. santalifolia, and makes a number of consequential errors in the text. 



" E. santalifolia and E. pachyloma, though placed widely apart and in different 

 sections of his anthereal system by Bentham are, as far as I can judge, quite identical." 

 (Mueller in Eucalyptographia). 



We have Bentham's authority for the statement (B. Fl. iii, 206) that " This 

 (E. santalifolia) is now reduced by F. Mueller to a form of E. obliqua, but besides the 

 foliage the shape of the fruit is different, being nearly that of E. macrorrhyncha or 

 E. capitellata.'''' 



This is additional evidence that Mueller did not really know his own species, 

 and. indeed, it is a very great advantage to a botanist to see the species in the field. 



3. Bentham (B. Fl. iii, 240) added E. diversifolia as a synonym of E. viminalis 

 Labill., under which he erroneously included other species (see this work, Part xxviii, 172). 

 He also furnished a description of E. santalifolia F.v.M. at B. Fl. iii, 206, and additional 

 notes at pp. 217 and 230, which are explained in Part vii, 199, 200. Some of his material 

 was probably mixed. 



* This work bears the date 1813 on the title page, but the latter parts were not published till 1816. 



(B. Fl, iii, 119.) 



