― 66 ―

LXX. E. concolor Schauer.

The Type. The concolor confusion.

THE type of this species comes from limestone hills near Fremantle, Western Australia, as stated at p. 153, Part XIV of this work. A good deal of confusion has gathered around it, partly because the incomplete material available could not be interpreted at the time.

Bentham (B.Fl. iii, 249) quotes, in addition to the type, only specimens which come from the south coast, hundreds of miles from the type locality.

In Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W., xlvii, 231 (1913), I have drawn attention to two specimens of the type lent to me by Dr. Fischer von Waldheim, then of the St. Petersburg Herbarium. Careful drawings were made of the specimens before returning them, but one was in leaf only and the other was in flower, but without opercula. With additional experience gained since then, and comparison of all material obtained from the Fremantle district (including Claremont), I find that figures 7 a-d, Plate 63, are practically identical with the type of E. concolor.

Fremantle material has, by Bentham, local botanists and myself, been included in three species in all, viz., E. decipiens, uncinata, and falcata. Following are references which will help to elucidate this:—

1. Under E. decipiens Endl. See Part XIV, last paragraph of p. 151, also Plate 63, figs. 7 a-d. Near Claremont Asylum, Perth, “practically a type locality of E. concolor.” In other words, I figured practically a typical specimen of E. concolor as E. decipiens.

Mr. W. V. Fitzgerald, a well-informed Western Australian botanist, wrote, “E. decipiens Endl. The Fremantle form consists of small thickets of erect shrubs, 8–12 feet high, growing on tertiary limestone.”

Bentham (B.Fl. iii) kept E. decipiens and E. concolor very far apart in his classification. Both under E. decipiens (p. 218) and under E. concolor (p. 247) he recognises shrubby and tree forms, but although he gives a far larger ultimate size to the former, he, speaking of the latter, says, “larger and more rigid (than E. decipiens) in all its parts.” To what extent the shrubby and tree forms are to be divided amongst E. decipiens and E. concolor begs the question as to whether the two species are really different.

In Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W., xlvii, 231 (1913) I express the opinion that E. decipiens and E. concolor are not specifically different, in which case E. decipiens, being the older name, would stand. In view of the fact that inquiry is still

  ― 67 ―
proceeding as to the relations of shrubs and trees from, say, the Swan River to King George's Sound, hitherto variously attributed to E. concolor and to E. decipiens, the matter may well stand over for a reasonable time.

It may turn out that—

  • (a) E. concolor is the Fremantle form of E. decipiens.
  • (b) E. decipiens var. angustifolia (see Part XIV, p. 149) is an even narrower-leaved form of E. decipiens than is typical E. concolor.

2. Under E. uncinata Turcz. See Part XIV, and at p. 145 we have Subiaco Beach near Fremantle (Dr. J. B. Cleland) and 3 miles south of Fremantle (W. V. Fitzgerald). I have also received specimens from “near Fremantle, Limestone” (C. Andrews). Not only did Mr. Fitzgerald, but also Mr. Andrews, another competent botanist, label them E. uncinata. They had not seen the type of E. uncinata, the forms of which have not even yet been fully worked out, and it is useful to point out that the view above indicated was held near the type locality of E. concolor itself.

It will be seen that Bentham (B.Fl. iii, 218) points out the similarity of the fruit in E. decipiens and E. uncinata.

3. Under E. falcata Turcz. var. ecostata Maiden. See Part XV, p. 181. On limestone, near Fremantle. (Cecil Andrews and W. V. Fitzgerald). These specimens are discussed in their relations to E. concolor lower down the page and on page 182. Placing these Fremantle specimens under E. falcata is an act for which I am alone responsible, but the Fremantle plant has the buds sometimes so ribbed as to resemble E. falcata somewhat.

Drummond's No. 77 is not E. concolor.

Bentham's citation of Drummond's 4th Coll. No. 77 under E. concolor, a very thick-leaved specimen, only seen in mature leaf and fruit, and figured at fig. 11, Plate 63 (Part XIV) is important inasmuch as it was the only specimen, named E. concolor by high authority, which was available for the guidance of Australian botanists for very many years. At fig. 12 I have matched Dr. Diels' Cape Riche specimen with it, and still think that this view is probably correct.

I have referred at length to Dr. Diels' specimens at p. 155, Part XIV. Some further collecting is required, in connection with the general decipiens-concolor investigation already referred to, when the position of these specimens can again be referred to, but at present it can be said that none of them are typical for E. concolor, and I have made a slip of the pen in the lettering under fig. 11 (page 163) in saying that Drummond's specimen is typical for E. concolor.

  ― 68 ―


At pages 66 and 67 I have already gone into the relations of E. concolor to E. decipiens, E. uncinata and E. falcata, and I have little to add.

1. With E. decipiens Endl.

Dr. Stoward, under No. 122, sent me a specimen of “White Gum, height 30–40, diameter of trunk 15–18 inches. Grows on limestone country in the Tuart belt along the coast. Spot near Newmarket Hotel, Coogee Road. April–May, 1917.” This is from the neighbourhood of typical E. concolor, and although these specimens lack juvenile leaves, they seem to answer to the description of E. decipiens. If E. concolor, as I surmise, then the tree is the largest recorded for that species.

2. With E. uncinata Turcz.

For this species I would invite attention to Plate 62, Part XIV, and would say that the species is, as regards some of the Western Australian specimens, under revision.

3. With E. falcata Turcz. var. ecostata Maiden.

For this species see Plate 68, Part XV.