488 J. H. MAIDEN. 
The juvenile leaves of E. celastroides have already been 
described in my W.A. paper, where also will be found a 
tabular comparison of other points of that species and FH. 
gracilis. Iam sorry I have not been able to obtain seeds 
so as to-describe the seedlings. 
3. H. GRACILIS H.v.M. 
(E. calycogona Turez., var. gracilis, Maiden, O.R. iii, 81; 
this Journ. XLIx, 324). 
Mueller always held the view that EH. gracilis included 
KE. calycogona, but the fact is, although there are con- 
necting forms (see p. 487) they are really distinct. JH. 
calycogona is the older name. 
It would appear that there are two more or less defined 
forms— : 
(a) That of S.A., Vic. and N.S.W. 
(b) That of W.A. 
(a) E. gracilis F.v.M., (See copy of original description 
in O.R. iii, 81) came from the “‘desert on the Murray River’’ 
(we no longer look upon the.‘‘ Mallee country”’ as desert), 
and whether from S.A. or Vic. territory we do not know. 
We have matched the type from both sides of the boundary- 
line. We have now collected from a number of localities, 
‘chiefly in South Australia. 
(b) Let us turn to the W.A. form. I have given some 
notes, more or less referring to it, this Journ. XLIx, 324. 
For an account of the tree, and its juvenile leaves, see my 
description in Journ. W.A. Nat. Hist. Soc., iii, (Jan. 1911). 
Comparing (a) and (b), there is some local variation in 
the width of the leaves. The broad-leaved form of (a) may 
have leaves as wide as those seen in (b), but the buds and 
fruits of (a) are larger and of a different shape. The 
fruits of (a) are more obconic, and the buds clavate—not 
cylindroid as in (b). 
