514 J. H. MAIDEN. 
I again refer to these Spit plants at C.R., ix, 287, . 
under H. Luehmanniana, and at plate 44, figs. 6h, 6k and 
at p. 290 again refer to the affinity of EH. virgata and H. 
Inuehmanniana. My additional investigation of these Spit 
plants has shown that these specimens, attributed to H.. 
virgata, are conspecific with HE. Luehmanniana. My inter- 
pretation of E. virgata in C.R. was not wrong; it was too 
narrow, and should have been extended to include E. 
Luehmanniana. 
I believe I have now cleared up a difficult piece of 
synonymy, which was rendered more difficult in regard to 
the critical problem of matching the type, owing to the 
fact that, in the vicinity of the Spit, H. virgata and E. 
obtusiflora, which simulate each other somewhat, were 
intermixed, but Messrs. Blakely and Boorman have kept 
the specimens from every individual plant distinct. 
HK. Luehmanniana F.v.M., Fragm. xi, 38, came from 
(translation) “‘ sandy-stony tableland about 2000 ft. high, 
eight English miles towards the north from the Bulli 
District, very rare among ferruginous gravel. W. Kirton.” 
This is practically the southern part of the National Park, 
the best known locality for the species. 
I have a fragment of the type (leaf and buds only) labelled 
by Mueller *‘ Hucalyptus virgata Sieber, Bulli, W. Kirton.” 
I have compared it with Sieber’s No. 467, and can see no 
difference. Ido not doubt that it is typical for H. Lueh- 
manniana. Mueller, as the description shows, had ampler 
material:than I have seen. 
Messrs. Baker and Smith (Proc. Roy. Soc. Tas., 1912, 
pp. 56-8) make a literary excursus of over two pages, in 
which they discuss E. virgata and E. Sieberiana, arriving — 
at the conclusion that the Tasmanian tree is difierent to 
the New South Wales and Victorian one, the former being 
EK. virgata and the mainland one EH. Sieberiana, and thus 
