]0 



Some of the juvenile foliage in my possession is coarser than any I have seen in E. viminalis, and I think 

 that Mr. Eodway's statement that this form only occurs in plantations " of E. viminalis growing with 

 E. globulus " is a sufficient explanation. 



The seedlings of E. Baeuerleni F.v.M. are identical with those of Mr. Eodway's variety. The 

 fruits also have much in common, but those of Mr. Eodway are usually more domed. The rim of the 

 junction of the calyx and operculum is very prominent in E. Baeuerleni; I have not ripe buds. The ripe 

 buds of var. macrocarpa are rounded and glaucous. 



The two forms (so called) of E. viminalis, viz., var. macrocarpa and var. Baeuerleni are undoubtedly 

 closely related. I think var. macrocarpa is a hybrid of E. viminalis x globulus. Whether E. Baeuerleni 

 is also a hybrid I cannot say, but I incline to think it is, the parents being possibly E. viminalis and 

 E. Maideni F.v.M. {Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 499 (1905) ). 



4. With E. globulus Labill. 



This {E. unialata) is referred to as E. viminalis var. macrocarpa by Eodway in " The Tasmanian 

 Flora," p. 57 (1903), where it is first suggested as a cross between E. globulus and E. viminalis. 



In this Journal, p. 29 (1914) I suspended my judgment as to its systematic position until I could 

 see the trees growing naturally. Eodway, this Journal, p. 17 (1917), again refers to this tree. 



In February, 1918, underMr. Eodway's guidance, I observed a number of the trees in the Domain 

 at Hobart. I may say that I had long been satisfied that the trees were different from E. viminalis and 

 E. globulus, but I had understood that they had only been found in a plantation and were not 

 spontaneous; I desired to see them before I wrote again. I am quite satisfied that they are spontaneous, 

 and that they are natural hybrids, and that it is expedient that they should have a distinctive name. I 

 therefore concur in Messrs. Baker and Smith's action. 



The Domain trees are large, and there are many of them. They also occur at Nelson's Eange, 

 near Sandy Bay, and Mr. Eodway informs me that they are not uncommon at Colcbrook (jate 

 Jerusalem) on the main line, 25 miles from Hobart. In all cases E. unialata occurs intermixed with 

 E. globxilus and E. viminalis. Doubtless they will be found in many other localities. 



Mr. Eodway's observation that it is a hybrid between these two species (first recorded in 1903) is 

 quite obvious, and it is one of the simplest cases of natural hybrielisation in the genus known to me. The 

 cross is seen in the tree generally, in juvenile leaves, buds, and fruits. 



It is testimony to the sound judgment of the late M. Naudin of the Villa Thuret, Antibes, in the 

 South of France, that he detected it as something different from E. viminalis, and only last year 

 M. Trabut described it as new, under the name of E. antipolitensis, and I append a translation of his 

 description. This is not the first occasion I have had the pleasure of drawing attention to the excellent 

 Eucalyptus woik of these French botanists. (Maiden in Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas., 89, 1918.) 



I have no doubt that we have here a natural hybrid, of which E. globulus is one 

 of the parents. Its relations to E. antipolitensis Trabut will be discussed when the 

 general question of Hybridisation is dealt with in the next Part (LII). 



