208 



AFFINITIES. 



E. Spenceriana has affinity with E. microtheca in regard to anthers, and to 

 E. papuana F.v.M. and allied species as regards fruits. 



1. With E. microtheca F.v.M, 



Mueller, who had apparently not seen fruits, labelled one specimen i?. microtheca, 

 and Dr. Jensen assumed that it was that species. E. microtheca is apparently compara- 

 tively rare in the Northern Territory. Reference to Plate 52 of this work shows that 

 the two species are sharply different as regards the typical fruits, those of E. microtheca 

 being very small, hemispherical, and having the valves very much exserted. At the 

 same time, I have seen specimens (e.g., Reid River, via Townsville, Queensland, Nicholas 

 Daley, 24th February, 1912) which show evidence of slight transition in the fruits. 

 The timbers of E. Spenceriana and E. microtheca appear to closely resemble each other. 



2. With E. papuana F.v.M. 



Undoubtedly the two species have affinity as regards their fruits, but their anthers 

 are quite different, those of E. papuana being versatile, and having long parallel slits, 

 with a comparatively large gland at the back. The flowers are larger and fewer in the 

 panicle and have flat operaila. 



The foliage of the two species has a general resemblance, but the leaves of 

 E. papuana are more undulate, more irregular in outline, thicker, and the venation 

 is coarser. 



The timber of E. papuana is brown and not reddish, and the bark tessellated or 

 smooth. E. papuana is closely related to E. clavigera A. Cunn. 



3. With E. Brownii Maiden and Cambage [Pros. Roy. Soc. xlvii, 215, 1913). 



This belongs to the Porantherae, and is described as a Box, two points of 

 similarity to E. Spenceriana. But the leaves of E. Brownii are more narrow lanceolate, 

 have glossy leaves and have more spreading venation. The inflorescence has very much 

 shorter peduncles and pedicels, and the fruits have not papery walls as in E. Spenceriana. 



4. With E. drepanophylla F.v.M. 



I only mention this because of the inclusion of an imperfect specimen (North- 

 west Coast, Allan Cunningham) under E. drepanophylla F.v.M., in B.F1. iii, 221. 



E. drepanophylla was even less known then than it is now T . It is an Ironbark, 

 and has not yet been found out of Northern Queensland. 



5. With E. brachyandra F.v.M. See Part XXX of the present work. 



In the texture and fine venation of the leaves. Those of E. Spenceriana are 

 more elongated. In the terminal and axillary inflorescence, and in the number of 

 flowers in the umbel (usually 4-7 in both species). In the blunt operculum of some 

 forms of E. Spenceriana. In the form of the ripe and unripe fruits. E. brachyandra 

 is smaller in all its parts. 



