Euthales filiformis de Vriese (7) was described from a specimen collected in Western Australia ‘in solo sublimoso fertili prope praedium rusticum Dom. Marell, York d. 30 m. Martii 1840. Herb. Preiss No. 1889.’ As appears from the original description de Vriese himself had already his doubts about its belonging to Euthales, a Goodeniaceous genus: ‘dichotoma, filiformis; foliis radicalibus squamaeformibus, caulibus ramisque aphyllis; calycibus 5-fidis, subaequalibus (Caetera non vidi). Habitus Junci bufonii, sed genus dubium.’ In a later publication of de Vriese (8) the calyx is said to be trifid, but this is obviously a printing error. It is a matter of course that Bentham (2), who had not seen the plant, was unable to recognize it from this very inadaequate diagnosis, and supposed that it might belong to some quite different genus. On what grounds the Index Kewensis (4) referred Euthales filiformis to the synonymy of Velleia trinervis (R.Br.) Labill. (= Euthales trinervis R. Br.), with which species it certainly has nothing to do, is unknown to me. There is a short note on Euthales filiformis in Krause’s monograph on the Goodeniaceae (5), which gives nothing new as it simply goes back to Bentham’s observation, but apart from this I have not found de Vriese’s species mentioned in more recent literature. Its name is not accounted for in Gardner’s enumeration of West Australian plants (3).