518 J. H. MAIDEN, 
Mueller.’’ The Mount Gambier specimens already referred 
to enable me to make this identification. 
So that its range in three States is extensive and the 
localities given will be connected in due course, for it has 
been a good deal confused in collections with H. amygdalina. 
on the one hand and E. coriacea on the other. | 
Examining my type specimens of KH. vitellina and com- 
paring them with the specimens of EH. vitrea which have 
accumulated from many localities since 1905, I have come 
to the conclusion that the two species are closely related, 
and spring from the same parents. I donot know whence 
the seed which produced the type of H. vitellina came; 
probably from a Victorian source. I can, I believe, match 
it with coastal Victorian-South Australian specimens. 
A difficulty in looking upon the two species as conspecific 
is Naudin’s use of the word “‘lineaire’’ to describe the 
juvenile leaves. He speaks of them as not lasting long, 
and in view of the narrowness of the mature leaves in his. 
type, I am of opinion that he described nearly opposite 
leaves, which are certainly linear-lanceolate. The mistake 
is easily made, especially as the tree was growing at Golfe 
Juan, some miles from Cape Antibes, his own head-quarters.. 
A letter to M. Poirault, M. Naudin’s successor, ascertained 
the fact that no strictly juvenile leaves could be found 
with the type specimens. 
At the same time, since in my view the existence of E, 
vitellina as a species hangs on the evidence as to the 
juvenile leaves, I hesitate to categorically state that M. 
Naudin’s description of them is wrong, however strongly 
I may think that such is probable. 
Other reputed differences seem to me of less importance. 
For example, I have no difficulty in reconciling the differ- 
