82 



J. H. MAIDEN. 



5. A box, hardly to be distinguished from E. populi- 

 folia." (Dr. T. L. Bancroft, in a letter to me.) 



The tree now described (forma decorticans) is very differ- 

 ent from E. leptophleba. Further material received from 

 Dr. T. L. Bancroft enables me to say that the barks are 

 different; also the juvenile and mature leaves are larger, 

 while the panicles are looser, and the fruit is also larger, 

 as a rule. 



E. leptophleba, F.v.M. has E. Stoneana, Bailey, 1 as a 

 synonym. 



B. E. DREPANOPHYLLA, F.V.M. 



1. Bark "Dark grey and ribbed " (B. Fl. iii, 221) original 

 description, quoting Dallachy. This may or may not be a 

 description of an ironbark. 



2. "An Ironbark" (B. Fl. iii, 221), quoting Fitzalan, 

 Dallachy, and Bowman. 



3. " Perhaps different bark" (to E.crebr a). ('Eucalypto- 

 graphia' under E. crebra.) 



4. "Belongs to the series of ironbark trees, with there- 

 fore furrowed and dark coloured bark, ( 4 Eucalyptographia' 

 under E. hemiphloia). 



There seems no doubt that the true E. drepanophylla is 

 an ironbark. 



Dr. T. L. Bancroft's Eidsvolcl specimens and field notes 

 are quite complete, while there is no evidence in the 

 Melbourne Herbarium that Mueller ever saw completely 

 matched specimens of either E. leptophleba, F.v.M. or E. 

 drepanophylla, F.v.M. 2 



That is why he threw doubt upon his own two species on 

 several occasions, and systematists will always be liable to 



1 Queensland Agric. Journ., xin, p. 259, 1909. 



8 I suggest that Bentham (B. Fl. iii, 221) on Mueller's behalf, compiled 

 the description from specimens from different localities. 



