185 
/ 
I have already discussed the localities given by Bentham in B. PL ii, 866, for 
A. amcena. 
I believe the species to be confined to southern New South Wales and 
northern Victoria so far as we know at present, but it requires to he carefully sought 
for in order that additional localities may he recorded. 
A. amcena is recorded hv Bailey from the Glasshouse Mountains, Queens¬ 
land, in his Queensland Flora, p. 489, but I am of opinion that the record should 
he expunged. Indeed, I think it extremely unlikely that the sj)ecies extends as far 
north as Queensland. 
I have it from the following localities :— 
On high banks of the Wollondilly Itiver, Upper Burragorang (No. 125*, 
flowers; No. 3095, fruits. R. H. Cambage). Also on the Kowmung. 
Bowral to Bullio, flowers only. (R. H. Cambage and J.II.M.) 
The following specimens are most probably A. amcena. I speak diffidently, 
because the material is incomplete. 
Snowy River, Victorian side (Mueller, 1854). Phyllodes only. 
Tombong, N.S.W., banks of the Snowy River. Phyllodes and young flower 
buds. The phyllodes, though a shade smaller, are remarkably like those of Wend- 
land’s figure. 
Buffalo Mountain, Victoria (C. "Walter.) In flower. The phyllodes are 
longer than those of the Snowy River specimens. Buffalo Mountain, so far, is the 
only locality from which I have obtained both A. rubida and A. amcena. 
The Affinity of Acacia rubida (A. Cunn.) and Acacia amcena (Wendl.) 
The closest affinity of A. amcena (Wendl.), is with A. rubida (A. Cunn.). Bent- 
liam’s surmise that A. rubida may be a variety of A. amcena is, like so many of his 
guesses when he has imperfect material, very shrewd. The two species are closely 
related, but I do not think they are conspecific, in view of the following evidence, which 
I do not think a more ample acquaintance with A. amcena will successfully overturn. 
(a) Bipinnate foliage is commonly seen in A . rubida , and not in A. amcena. 
(h) There is absence of reddish or reddish-brown foliage (foliage and phyllodes) 
as in A. rubida, or it is very rare. 
(c) The phyllodes of A. rubida are usually longer and larger, while the 
glands are fewer and less prominent than in A. amcena. 
(d) The ovarium is smooth in A. rubida, and densely toincntose in A. amcena. 
(e) The valves of the pod are narrower and more constricted between the 
seeds in A. amcena, not rather flat as in A. rubida ; rather shiny in A. amcena and 
often glaucous in A. rubida. 
Mr. R. II. Cambage, speaking of A. amcena on the Wollondilly River, says :— 
The shrubs of A. amcena were rather smaller than those of A. rubitla, hut otherwise somewhat similar. 
T did not notice any reddish-brown cast. 
No pinnate leaves were seen at all, and T do not think they would have escaped me if present. 
