:.0.'5 



material has been obtained from other localities, which 

 confirmed our suspicions, and led in this case to the restor- 

 ation to specific rank of Lindley's M. trichostachya. 



M. styphelioides, Sm. was next investigated, and this 

 appears to be a sound species, both morphologically and 

 chemically. However, some of the material which was 

 placed tentatively with it, was found afterwards to differ 

 considerably in several respects, and in this case also differ- 

 entiation had to be resorted to in order to systematically 

 place the results. The outcome of it was that Mc-II.t's 

 M. bvactenta was separated from not only M. si iij>Iu'Hi,!<Ics, 

 which, in Mueller's and our opinion, it somewhat resembles 

 morphologically, but also from M. <j<-nisl i[<>li<i. with which 

 species, however, Bent ham regards it more closely related. 1 



The characters upon which our classification is founded 

 are detailed under each species, and as in Parts I and II of 

 this series of papers, chemistry and anatomy enter largely 

 into the evidence adduced to wan ant such a classification. 

 (I) Melaleuca ' richostachya, Lindl., in Mitch. Trop. Aust 

 277. 



Historical. — In 1797, Smith described in Trans. Linn. 

 Soc. of London, III, p. 278, a species of Melaleuca under 

 the name M. linarii folia. This shrub is fairly common in 

 the County of Cumberland, and especially Port Jackson 

 where it was collected by Robert Brown. 



In 1816, Mitchell collected a Melaleuca at Belyando 

 River, which was described by Lindley, ioc. eft. supra. 

 This was synonymised by Bentham and Mueller in the Flora 

 Australiensis, Vol. in, p. 141, under Smith's species, as var. 

 I richostticti'jn, •Aith !< • -a lit i»-< IVIyando liivcr, MitehHI, 

 Burdekin and Gilbert Rivers, and along the North-east 

 ('oast, F. Mueller; Cooper's Creek, Howitt's Expedition. 

 1 Flora Australiensis III, p. 144. 



