NOTES ON EUCALYPTUS. 505 
In his ‘* Forest edonnees of Western Australia,’’ (1879) 
Mueller figures E. longicornis, but at p. 12, in referring to 
Fragm., XI, 14, says “It is needless to devote to this 
Eucalypt a special description, as most probably it consti- 
tutes a mere variety of the preceding (E. oleosa). It differs, 
however, in its comparatively tall stature, attaining a 
height of 120 feet, and perhaps more,”’ and he repeats the 
differences from EK. fcecunda and EH. salmonophloia, already 
given. 
In “‘Kucalyptographia,’’ under HE. oleosa, Mueller says, 
“In Western Australia occur several kinds of trees, the 
precise relation of which to E. oleosa is not yet clearly 
understood; they are ‘the Morrell, E. longicornis (he adds 
salmonophloia, salubris, leptopoda and decipiens)...... All 
attain a height of about 100 feet (E. leptopoda certainly 
does not, and I have my doubts as to some of the others.— 
J.H.M.), and E. longicornis may only be the favourably 
developed arboreous state of EH. oleosa; its bark is totally 
persistent, the foliage is like that of EH. salmonophloia, the 
lids are horn-like elongated, which suggested the name, 
-and outer stamens are straight in bud.”’ 
So far as I know, thisis the last statement Mueller made 
‘in regard to EH. longicoriis, and he omitted the name from 
his Census. 
In C.R., part xv, 166, and at figs. 4 and 5, plate 66, I 
have referred to this tree, and have suggested the identity 
of this particular Morrel with the Poot, also of Western 
Australia. 
I am now of opinion that Mueller’s E. longicornis is 
sufficiently distinct from E. oleosa to be considered a 
species, and therefore I recommend adoption of the name. 
The species has been sufficiently characterised, although 
Mueller did not describe it as formally as he would have 
done, had he been more certain of it. The size, the bark, 
