NOTES ON EUCALYPTUS. 83 



make mistakes when they have to deal with incomplete 

 material, and, through attempting to match material from 

 different sources are led to make inferences. Even with 

 complete material from a specific locality, the question of 

 variation must also be borne in mind. 



I also received complete material and field notes of E. 

 leptophleba from Dr. T. L. Bancroft from Stannary Hills, 

 North Queensland, and I am now led to submit the follow- 

 ing propositions: — 



1. E. leptophleba P.v.M. and E. drepanophylla, P.v.M. 

 are distinct species, the former being a Box and the latter 

 an Ironbark. 



2. The following specimens are correctly referable to 

 E. drepanophylla, F.v.M. 



(a) Port Denison ; also Burdekin Expedition, Fitzalan 



(evidently the type). 



(b) Cleveland Bay (S. Johnson). Both specimens in 



bud and flower only. 



(c) Ravenswood, Burdekin River (Johnson). In fruit 



only, labelled both drepanophylla and crebra by 

 Mueller. 



3. E. siderophloia, Benth. forma decorticans Bailey is 

 referable to E. drepanophylla, P.v.M. 



E. siderophloia, Benth. and its relation to E. panicu- 

 lata, Sm. in Queensland. 



The form (decorticans) above referred to, cannot belong 

 to E. siderophloia because of the bark and timber, while 

 the juvenile leaves are wholly dissimilar, to mention no 

 other difference. Investigation of the relations of E. 

 drepanophylla, P.v.M. with E. siderophloia, Benth., has 

 caused me to submit the following brief notes in regard to 

 the latter species and E. paniculata, Sm. in Queensland. 



