80 
Mr. Baker writes :— 
I have been enabled to examine the specimens on which Mueller founded his species (C. lepidophloia), 
and except in the diameter of the leaflets [slip of the pen for “ branchlets,” J.H.M.] (in some cases), there 
is nothing to connect it with this new species ( C. Cambagei). 
The differences are according to Mr. Baker :—- 
C. lepidophloia. 
Cortex squamosus. Arbor minor v. mediocris. 
Strobilis breviusculis *ful vide sericeo-tomen- 
tellis. 
Lignum molliusculum haud durissimum. 
C. Cambagei. 
Bark certainly not flak}'. The tree attaining 
the height of 70-100 feet. 
The valves are rarely “ fulvous pubescent, but 
nearly always whitish.” 
Perhaps the hardest timber in the western 
area. 
These are all the differences which are pointed out specially. I will deal 
with them under different headings ; and it seems to me there is nothing essential 
in these differences to justify the setting aside of Mueller’s name. 
Confusion of the Belah with C. glauca. — The confusion of this species with 
glauca is one for which Mueller himself is to some extent responsible, he having 
from time to time named the Belah glauca ; and Mr Baker does well to insist that 
the timbers of the two species (viz., Belah and glauca) are quite different, and that 
the two species differ in other respects. 
Mr. Baker draws attention to Mueller’s statement that C. lepidophloia occurs 
amongst C. glauca, Mueller’s words being “ una cum C. glaucaB Mr. Baker says 
that, “C. glauca is not found in the interior.” This is true as far as our knowledge 
goes at present; at the same time, C. glauca is found in the interior of Western 
Australia, and there is nothing inherently improbable in it occurring in South 
Australia and the extreme west of New South Wales. Mueller’s sentence is, 
however, nothing more or less than an indication that he has mixed up the Belah 
and glauca, which is evident on other grounds. 
There is no question that herbarium specimens of lepidophloia, especially 
when cones are wanting, very strongly resemble C. glauca. 
Leaves (branchlets).— 
It has been remarked that this “oak ” is of all trees most liable to be struck by lightning, doubtless 
from its peculiarly formed foliage, which consists of short, wiry leaves standing out like a brush, and 
presenting so many conductors to attract the electric fluid.—(R. Bennett.) 
Mr. T\ B. Guthrie, in Agricultural Gazette, October, 1899, has analysed it 
under Nos. 8 and 15 with respect to its fodder value :— 
Water. 
Ash. 
Fibre. 
Ether 
extract, 
oil, &c. 
Albu- 
menoids. 
Carbo¬ 
hydrates. 
Nutrient 
value. 
Albumenoid 
ratio. 
Tannin 
(Oak bark). 
11-70 
5-66 
46-86 
. 
2-80 
9-06 
23-92 
391 
i -H 
2-5 
19-44 
4-01 
27-15 
3-40 
9-75 
36-25 
5 31 
1:4 * 
2-4 
