66 R. T. BAKER AND H. G. SMITH. 
It is well described by Bentham in the ‘“ Flora 
Australiensis,’’ (loc. cit.) and so need not again be described 
here. A passing reference however might be made to the 
marginal and lateral veins of the leaf which are distinctly 
marked, but are not referred to by Bentham (loc. cit.) 
The material upon which this research is founded was 
obtained at Gosford and was carefully examined in order 
to correctly establish its botanical identity. There can be 
no doubt that the chemical results are founded on botanical 
material true to specific name i.e., M. linariifolia, Sm. 
Like its congener described in this paper it was one of the 
first Melaleucas recorded, being described by Smith 
synchronously with that species, M. thymifolia. The oil 
glands are evidently less numerous than those of M. 
thymifolia, but are just as prominent in the lower as the 
upper surface of the leaf, and the yield of oil is considerably 
less than in that species. 
Histology—The histological characters of the leaves of 
this species differ in a few particulars from those of M. 
thymifolia. The palisade parenchyma occupies much less 
of the leaf structure, the difference being occupied by a 
greater development of spongy tissue. The oil glands, 
whilst fewer in number, are much larger than those of 
M. thymifolia, an individual gland extending almost from 
the ventral to the dorsal surface. 
Collenchymatous cells which are entirely absent in the 
sections of M. thymifolia, are here very numerous between 
the midrib and the dorsal epidermis, a character common 
in the leaves of Hucalyptus globulus, Labill. 
The large air cavities, so distinctive a feature in the 
leaves of M. thymifolia are almost quite absent in this 
species, the more numerous and larger air cavities of the 
spongy parenchyma probably compensating for this 
deficiency. 
