279 



Victoria. — This State is not mentioned by Bentham, but I give a number of 

 Victorian localities in the present work, Part IV, p. 108. 



In B. Fl. hi, 231, we have it stated under New South Wales, " Mallee scrub of 

 the Murray desert to the Barrier Range, Victorian Expedition." (Howitt's.) 



Messrs. Baker and Smith (loc. tit.) record " South-west of New South Wales," 

 without quotation of specimens. Perhaps they follow Bentham. In the present work, 

 IV, 108, I definitely state that I have not seen E. angulosa (var. angulosa) in New South 

 Wales, and it should be searched for. 



AFFINITIES. 



1. With E. torquata Luehmann. 



I mention this here because Messrs. Baker and Smith reduce, it to a synonym of 

 E. costata (angulosa), which is quite untenable. There are figures of flowers and fruits 

 at fig. 6, Plate 13, and these may be compared with the figures on Plate 14 (Part IV), 

 but as I am giving additional figures in Part LVII, I shall refer to the matter then. 

 At the present time, it may be sufficient to say that E. torquata is a fairly large, rough- 

 barked tree, only found in the interior, while E. angulosa is a usually coastal, tall, 

 umbrageous shrub, and rarely a small, smooth-barked tree with ribbons. E. angulosa 

 is usually sessile or nearly so, but the pedicels (where they exist) and the peduncles 

 are totally different. The opercula and shapes of the buds in the two species are very 

 different, and the same may be said of the fruits. E. angulosa has white or cream- 

 coloured flowers, while those of E. torquata are pink of various shades. 



2. With E. conglobata K.Br. 



Compare Plate 17 (E. conglobata) with that of E. angulosa. The flowers and 

 fruits of the latter are much coarser, the buds smaller, less ribbed, only exceptionally 

 quite sessile, the fruits much larger, of a different snape, and very much more ribbed 

 than those of E. conalohata. 



