NOTES UN EUCALYPTUS, 507 
and more yellowish, or yellowish-green. The leaves of 
E. micranthera have longer petioles and are somewhat 
broader. 
19. E. PACHYPHYLLA F.v.M., Journ. Linn. Soc., iii, 98 (1859). 
In Ewart and Davies’ ‘Flora of the Northern Territory,’” 
p. 306 (1917) I indicated that I believe this is a valid species, 
and that my EH. pyriformis Turcz., var. minor, C.R., ii, 
(Part xvii) 232 and 235, should merge in it. I desire to 
draw attention to this species, which is in some confusion.. 
At p. 232 I give a literal translation of the original 
description (by the way, orgyalis, which then puzzled me, 
means length of a fathom). Flowers were unknown, the 
fruits (in threes) are carefully described, peduncles and 
pedicels very short. The affinity was given to H. alpina. 
Bentham (B. FL, iii, 237) then described the species, but. 
he pointed out the inadequacy of the material, and even 
doubted if it should be given specific rank. In Fragm. x,,. 
5 (1876) Mueller recorded it from Glen of Palms, Macdon- 
ne!l Range, Northern Territory (H. Giles), and described 
the flowers (5—7 and nearly sessile) for the first time. He 
indicated its true affinity to EH. pyriformis. 
Mueller then figured the species in his ‘‘ Hucalypto- 
graphia,’’ and, as usual, he missed the opportunity of 
figuring the type. The localities he quotes are, with one 
exception, those of the type and of Giles. The exception 
is Lake Amadeus. At p. 233 of my O.R., I have already 
pointed out that he figures a pedicellate form, which is. 
nearest in shape of the fruits, though not in number in 
head, to my fig. 7b, plate 75. 
Mueller’s type does not appear to be in existence, but 
Nos. 5 and 6 of my plate are probably very close to it. So 
are Nos. 147 and 361 of the specimens referred to by me in 
Ewart and Davies’ ‘‘Flora,’’ but those of 371 have larger 
fruits, with longer pedicels. 
