262 



DESCRIPTION. 



CCIX. E. gracilis F.v.M. 



Tn Trans. Vict. Inst, i, 35 (1855). 



The brief original description will be found at Part III, p. 81, of the present work, and 

 the species is adequately figured at Plate 12. 



Subsequently to the original description, Mueller named specimens (which were 

 later ascertained to be Turczaninow's E. calycogona and E. celastroides) as E. gracilis 

 or forms of it. In his " Eucalyptographia," under E. gracilis, he gives the two 

 former names as synonyms, but ignores questions of priority; indeed, he mentions 

 E. calycogona and E. celastroides no further. He does not even admit them on his Plate. 



Then came Bentham's description of E. gracilis in B.F1. iii, 211 (1866). 

 Unfortunately, Turczaninow's researches on Eucalyptus (referred to at Part III, 

 p. 77) were not known to Bentham, although we see that he had Drummond's 184 

 (E. calycogona Turcz. ) and Drummond's 34 (E. celastroides Turcz. ) before him. These 

 names were unknown to him, and he followed Mueller in placing these forms under 

 E. gracilis. 



Tn Proc. Roy. Sac. X.S.W., vol. Iii, p. 488 (1918), I have made some of the 

 following statements : — 



It would appear that there are two more or less defined forms— 



(a) That of South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales. 



(6) That of Western Australia. 



(a) E. gracilis F.v.M. (see copy of original description in C.R. Ill, 81) came from 

 the '' desert of the Murray River " (we no longer look upon the " Mallee country " as 

 desert), and whether from South Australia or Victorian territory, we do not know. 

 We have matched the type from both sides of the boundary-line. We have now collected 

 from a number of localities, chiefly in South Australia. 



(b) Let us turn to the Western Australian form. I have given some notes, more 

 or less referring to it, Journ. Roy. Soc. N.S. 11'., xlix, 324. For an account of the tree, 

 and its juvenile leaves, see my description in Journ. ]Y.A. Nat. Hist. Soc. iii (January 

 1911). 



Comparing (a) and (b), there is some local variation in the width of the leaves. 

 The broad-leaved form of (</) may have leaves as wide as those seen in (b), but the buds 

 and fruits of («) are larger and of a different shape. The fruits of (a) are more obconic, 

 and the buds clavate— not cyhndroid as in (6). 



