10 



XXXIII. E. Siebenana F.v.M. 



At p. 194, Proc. Roy. Soc, Tas., 1912, Messrs. Baker and Smith attempt to 

 prove that E.- virgata Sieb. is identical with E. Sieberiana F.v.M. At Parts IX and X 

 of the present work, I have very carefully gone into the subject, quoting my authorities. 

 At p. 307 of Part X (1908) I said :— 



In " Eucalyptographia," under E. Sieberiana F.v.M., Mueller gives E. virgata Sieb., as a synonym. 

 It is not proper to state it so. Mueller thought, when describing it, he was suppressing the " misleading " 

 name virgata for it. The explanation is that E. virgata Sieber, was for many years confused by Bentham, 

 by Mueller, and other botanists with the tree Mueller, in spite of himself, properly separated from virgata 

 under the name Sieberiana. I have explained the situation under E. virgata at Part IX, p. 275 of this 

 work, and need not repeat myself here. 



I know no true synonyms of E. Sieberiana F.v.M. 



Now Messrs. Baker and Smith, by an argument that is' not clear to me, 

 completely reverse my conclusions, returning, as I maintain, to the old confusion I had 

 cleared up. This is part of their argument : — 



It seems hardly likely either that Sieber, having himself collected his two species in the field, should 

 have given separate names to one and the same tree, for he was thus able to speak from actual acquaintance 

 with their field characters, an experience that is invaluable as regards a knowledge of the Eucalypts. 



In regard to this remark, I can say that, having examined every one of Sieber's 

 numbered Eucalypts in the great herbaria of Europe, he is not always infallible in 

 regard to this difficult genus, and little blame to him, while, as regards the reference to 

 actual acquaintance with their field characters, the present writer speaks with infinitely 

 greater experience that this old worthy could have possibly obtained during his rapid 

 and brief collecting tours in New South Wales in the year 1 822. 



Messrs. Baker and Smith's cancelling of E. Sieberiana F. v. M. for the Tasmanian 

 " Ironbark " after it has been adopted by Mueller (" Eucalyptographia " and " Second 

 Census "), Rodway (" The Tasmanian Flora ") and myself, seems to be one of the most 

 unfortunate confusions of nomenclature they have introduced into their paper. 

 (Maiden in Joum. Roy. Soc, Tas., p. 30, 1914.) 



