168 



AFFINITIES. 



1. With E. tetragona F.v.M. 



' Very near E. tetragona in characters, but the narrow leaves, small flowers and 

 narrow fruits give it a very different aspect." (B.F1. hi, 260.) 



" The differences between E. tetragona and E. eudcsmioides . . . consist in the much narrower 

 leaves of E. eudesmioides, the absence of the waxy-powdery whiteness, less or not compressed flower-stalks, 

 smaller flowers and fruits, prevailing ternary number of fruit-valves ... A large fruited form of this 

 plant from Esperance Bay, referred to E. tetragona in the ' Flora Australiensis ' seems to mediate the 

 transit from E. tetragona to E. eudesmioides; it is without whitish bloom, and may exhibit the aged state 

 of the species." ("Eucalyptographia.") 



No form, large-fruited or other, from Esperance Bay, is referred to E. tetragona 

 in the " Flora Australiensis." Mueller is referring to a specimen in his own herbarium, 

 as follows :— His label is (i Eucalyptus tetragona F.M. (Uudesmia), Esperance Bay. Transit 

 to E. eudesmioides. Flower stalks compressed." 



Diels and Pritzel refer to it in the following passages : — 



" E. tetragona F.v.M. We have seen a form with narrower lanceolate-elliptical leaves and less 

 pruinose, collected in the eastern Eyre district near Israelite Bay (A. G. Brooks) in the Melbourne herb. 

 This specimen seems analogous, to the form, mentioned by Mueller in Eucalyptographia, as showing transit 

 to E. eudesmioides, found near Esperance Bay. Still it seems to have much more affinity to E. tetragona 

 than E. eudesmioides." (Diels and Pritzel in Engler Jahrb.,. xxxv, 444.) 



This Esperance Bay specimen (E. tetragona, in my view), is referred to again by 

 Dr. Diels in the following passage (translation) : — 



The species (E. tetragona) belongs from its fruits and flowers to the very small group of Eudesmiese 

 (Bentham Fl. Austr. iii, 258) and is there doubtlessly nearly related to E. eudesmioides F.v.M. (fig. 27), 

 Nothing is more expressive of the close relationship of the two species than the different limits different 

 authors draw to the forms of the two species. According to F. v. Mueller (Eucalyptographia) E. 

 eudesmioides is distinguished by the alternate, much smaller leaves, the warting of the white waxy bloom, 

 less or not at all flattened pedicels, and smaller flowers and fruits. A large-fruited form from Esperance 

 Bay — so continues F. v. Mueller — which is placed by Bentham (B.F1.) with E. tetragona, seems to represent 

 a transition of the two ; it has no white bloom and is perhaps the grown-up state of the species. With this 

 F. v. Mueller admits that a form regarded by him as E. eudesmioides is perhaps the fully matured state of 

 E. tetragona. I can only agree with this view after examining a specimen similar to the form in question 

 collected by Miss Brooke at Israelite Bay. This plant is from the fruit entirely E. tetragona, but the leaves 

 are partly alternate, smaller, without bloom, and the flowers are smaller, therefore a clear transition to 

 E. eudesmioides, whose type, collected about 900 km. more northerly, is figured at fig. 27d. (" Jugendformen 

 und Blutenreife," p. 94.) 



This Esperance Bay specimen is figured at figs, la-d, Plate 188 ; see the description 

 of the Plate given at page 183, where I express the opinion that it is E. tetragona, with 

 fruits not quite ripe. It may be looked upon as starved. At the same time, I agree 

 that it seems to show characters intermediate between E. tetragona and E. eudesmioides. 

 Further, we must remember that it comes from country where E. tetragona is abundant, 

 and E. eudesmioides absent, the latter being found in more northerly, much drier, 

 country. 



The chief differences between the two species are tabulated by me at page 137, 

 Pai-t XLV. 



