86 



6. The present writer, who has dealt with the species (a) this work, Part vii, 

 197 (1905), where he included both E. santalifolia and E. pachyloma in E. diversifolia, 

 (b) in Trans. Roy. Soc, S.A., xxxii, 279 (1908), (c) Journ. W.A. Nat. Hist. Soc, iii, 166 

 (Jan., 1911), where he stated, " It is quite impossible to keep E. pachyloma as a synonym 

 of E. diversifolia.'" 



I travelled extensively in South Australia in 1907, and E. diversifolia was deliber- 

 ately investigated by me. Similarly, when I made a prolonged tour of Western Australia 

 in 1909, I made a special trip after E. pachyloma, as I considered it required further 

 investigation. 



Mueller and I are quite in agreement in considering E. diversifolia and E. santali- 

 folia as conspecific, but he makes the following extraordinary excuse for suppressing 

 Bonpland's in favour of his own name. 



" The name of E diversifolia, given by Bonpland, had to be discarded, although he described the 

 species already in 1813, and had it illustrated by Bessa simultaneously, because the plant as defined by him 

 represents that very young state in which, as in most species of Eucalyptus, the leaves pass from the broad 

 form of juvenile plants into the narrow shape of the leaves, normal for adult trees. The illustration indicates 

 well that the leaves of the young seedlings are opposite, sessile, and oval, a sort of characteristic, which is 

 particularly applicable for the discrimination of specific forms also in this genus." (Eucalyptographia 

 under E. santalifolia.) 



Mueller not only suppressed diversifolia in favour of his own santalifolia, but 

 many years later he included pachyloma with his species, and in the Eucalyptographia 

 (under E. santalifolia) he goes on to make deductions as to the similarities and dis. 

 similarities of his E. santalifolia (his " Eucalyptographia " species, and not his original 

 species) with E. capitettata, E. diversifolia and E. viminalis, which are quite erroneous 

 because of his wrong identification. 



The flattened or horizontal rim in E. diversifolia is a character, although there 

 is a tendency to convexity of the rim, which undoubtedly let Mueller into his mistake of 

 confusing the species with E. pachyloma, a species in which this convexity is exaggerated. 

 This flatness of the rim is well brought out in Bessa's plate, the fruits depicted beino- 

 the small form often found in this species. Indeed there is much variation in size. The 

 fruits of E. diversifolia have often corky tuberculate excrescences. 



Some notes on distribution. — I have a specimen bearing the label, ""Eucalyptus 

 diversifolia Bonpland. Confondu par Bentham avec VE. viminalis, et par Fd. Muller 

 avec le santalifolia (Ch. Ndn.)" (Charles Naudin.) " Jardin de la Marine a Ste. Man- 

 drier, Toulon " (France) (Ch. Ndn.). It is referred to already, and is quite typical. 



As regards the range, indicated at pages 201 and 202 of Vol. i of my Crit. Rev., 

 the following additions and amendments may be made. 



The Western Australian localities must be deleted, for E. diversifolia does not 

 extend to that State, the references to that State belonging to E. pachyloma. 



The specific Victorian locality near Cape Nelson is Mount Chaucer. 



[At Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. W. xxix, 768 (1904) I have drawn attention to a specimen 

 of a sheet of mixed Western Australian material distributed by Preiss under his No. 252, 

 some of which belongs to E. patens Benth. At all events none of the material dis- 

 tributed under No. 252 is either E. pachyloma or E. diversifolia, and the matter may 

 be dismissed from the present investigation.] 



