NOTES ON EUCALYPTUS. 231 



the Tasmanian tree was identical with the allied E. Mac- 

 arthuri, Deane and Maiden, which is incorrect. So far as 

 we know, at present, E. Macarthuri does not exist in 

 Tasmania. 



(b) E. decipiens, Endl., and E. concolor, Schauer. 

 Not specifically different. 

 I have dealt with E. decipiens at p. 149 and E. concolor 

 at p. 153, Part xiv of my " Critical Revision." At p. 154, 

 I stated that I had not seen the type of E. concolor, and 

 at p. 155 I drew attention to the unsatisfactoriness of the 

 situation, so far as the relations of this species and E. 

 decipiens are concerned. Schauer in Lehmann, "Plantae 

 Preissianae," i, 129, gives the habitat etc., of the type of 

 E. concolor as "In colle calcareo prope coloniam Free- 

 mantle December 1838 florens, Herb. Preiss. No. 225." 



A specimen of the type, which seems to be excessively 

 rare, is before me, kindly lent by Dr. Fischer von Waldheim r 

 Director of the Imperial Botanic Garden of St. Petersburg- 

 It bears the label "225, Euccdyptus concolor, Schauer, 

 arbuscula 8-12 pedalis. In colle calcarea prope urbisculum 

 Freemantle, Decbr. 24, 38, L. Preiss legit." 



This typical E. concolor (from Fremantle of course) is 

 identical with the specimens from the same locality 

 enumerated in the last paragraph of p. 151 (op. cit.) with 

 the exception that Mr. Fitzgerald's specimens are not so 

 typical as the others. Continuing the examination further, 

 I cannot find any important difference between these 

 typical specimens of E. concolor and those enumerated by 

 me at pp. 150, 151, under E. decipiens (I will refer to var. 

 angustifolia presently). 



Turning now to the specimens of E. concolor enumerated 

 at p. 154, the specimens I there recorded as having been 

 seen by me, are coarser and have the leaves somewhat 

 thicker than those of the type. 



