NOTES ON EUCALYPTUS. 487 
I have compared the juvenile leaves (suckers) of H. caly- 
cogona, Parilla Forest, 8.A.,W. Gill, June, 1918, with those of 
E. gracilis, Karoonda, Hundred Hooper,S.A., W. J.Spafiord, 
No. 19, and the only difference I can find is one of roughness, 
which appears to be referable to the more numerous oil 
dots in the leaves of H. calycogona. 
Those of E. gracilis, Lake View, Griffith, N.S.W., W. D. 
Campbell, are almost identical with W. J. Spafford’s No. 19. 
They are a little immature, but the outline and venation 
are the same asin the South Australian specimen. These 
observations alone show the close relations of E. calycogona 
and H. gracilis. In C.R., Part iii, p. 81, I have referred 
to the imperceptible gradations between var. gracilis (EH. 
gracilis F.v.M.) and the angular calyx form (H. calycogona). 
Mueller indeed labelled typical H. calycogona, HE. gracilis, 
In this Journ. XLIx, p. 324, Lrefer to an intermediate. form, 
and add Euston to Mildura, V. (W. J. Brownscombe). But 
it seems so different in the angular flowers and fruits. 
Fruits of E. calycogona (W. J. Spafford, Yeelanna and 
Butler, EHyre’s Peninsula, S.A.) are the largest I have 
seen, and remind one of those of HE. Forrestiana and EH. 
tetraptera. 
2. KH. CELASTROIDES Turcz. 
(E. calycogona Turcz. var. celastroides Maiden, C.R. iii, 
79; Journ. W.A. Nat. Hist. Soc. iii, 168-9, 1911). 
It is not certainly known from any State other than W.A. 
Certain W.A. localities are given in C.R. iii, p. 83, and I 
may add to them a number quoted in my “‘Journ. W.A. 
Nat. Hist.”? paper. To them may be added Yilgarn and 
Kellerberrin (both W. V. Fitzgerald). 
I quote transit forms from $.A., this Journ. XLIX, p. 324, 
and the specimens quoted in C.R. iii, 83, from Vic. belong 
to H. fruticetorum F.v.M., as indicated, a species of which 
we know more than at that time. 
