BO 
The works quoted by Bentham are as follows :— 
(1) Bot. Beg. t. 1352 (1830). (Syn. quoted by Don.) 
Lindley, in publishing his plate, says: “ This is said to be a very variable 
species; and such it appears to be, if we are to judge from the figures that have 
been published of it, no two of which represent exactly the same state.” . . . 
“A native of Van Diemen’s Land.” . . . This is a mistake. 
The frequency with which it was figured is testimony to the extent to which 
it was cultivated as an ornamental plant. 
Lindley called it “ Crescent-leaved Acacia,” and the pointed character of the 
phyllode is brought out in his drawing. 
(2) Lodd. Bot. Cab. t. 381 (1819). (Syn. quoted by Don.) 
“ The leaves are about an inch long, in form resembling the moon at three 
or four days old.” The figure is not very characteristic, hut there is no doubt it 
was drawn from a cultivated specimen of A. lunata. 
A specimen received from Kew, bearing the following label— 
“ Acacia buxifolia, A. C. ( nota bene , J.H.M.) 
“ (named by Bentham) 
“ Blue Mountains, N. Holland.” 
“ Coll, probably Fraser,” is very similar to t. 384, just referred to. 
It is from a lunata locality, and certainly nearer to typical lunata than to 
typical buxifolia in my view. This is an instance of the difficulty of endeavouring 
to keep the species apart. 
(3) Sweet, FI. Austral, t. 42 (1827-8). (Syn. quoted by Don.) 
“Lunate-leaved Acacia.” Stated to be the Acacia hrevifolia of Bot. Cab. 
1235. 
This beautiful species is one of the most variable plants in the genus, scarcely any two of them 
raised from seeds being alike. Mr. Loddiges has figured the short broad-leaved one as a different species, 
under the name of A. brevifolia ; but this is the most common state of the species, and we have frequently 
raised that and his A. lunata out of the same pod of seed. 
(Sweet). His plate of A. lunata is excellent, but he repeats the error that it is a 
native of “ Van Diemen’s Island.” 
(4) F. Muell. PI. Viet, ii, 17 (partly). 
I wrote to Kew asking what publication Bentham had in view, and I 
received the following reply :— 
The publication referred to by Bentham in his FI. Austral, ii, p. 373, as “ F. Muell. PI. Viet.,” is 
Mueller’s “ Plants indigenous to the Colony of Victoria,” the first volume of which was completed, but of 
the second volume, only a fragment containing part of the Leguminosse and with no Title-page was issued. 
On page 17 will be found the description of Acacia lunata, referred to by Bentham, l.c. 
