9. VIII. Eucalyptus coccifera, Hook. f.

1.  Description  142 
Notes supplementary to the description  142 
2.  Synonyms  143 
Notes on the Synonyms  143 
3.  Range  144 
Affinities  144 
Explanation of plates  145 

  ― 142 ―


Eucalyptus coccifera, Hook., f.

FOLLOWING is the original description:—

Ramis ramulisque teretibus lævibus plerumque glaucis, foliis alternis parvis uniformibus lineariellipticis lanceolatis v. anguste ovatis acuminatis utrinque attenuatis apicibus juniorum unicinato-hamatis, pedunculis brevibus 3-floris rarissime 4–8-floris, alabastris ancipiti-compressis obovato-obconicis, operculo depresso apice concavo capsula latiore rugoso, capsula obconico-hemispherica latiore quam longa basin versus bicarinata brevissime pedicellata, pedicello compresso, ore plano dilatato rarius convexiusculo v. concavo, valvis axi capsulæ parvis. Tops of mountains, Lawrence, Gunn.

Arbor parva, 10-pedalis, e basi ramosa. Folia coriacea, sublonge petiolata, petiolo ½ unc. longo, lamina 1½–2½ unc. longa, ½–1 unc. lata, elliptico-ovata v. lanceolata, v. lineari-lanceolata, omnia 1-nervia. Pedunculi breves, fere omnes 3-flori. Alabastra longitidine et diametro varia, longiora ½ uncialia, obovato-obconica, pedicellata, breviora ¼ unc. longa, sessilia, breviter obconica, omnia compressa. Capsulæ ?–½ unc. latae, utrinque carinatæ, carinæ cum angulis pedicelli continuæ, nunc ad orem capsulæ productæ, nunc supra basin evanidæ—(Lond. Journ. Bot., vi, 1847, 477). It is described by Bentham in B.Fl., iii, 204.

This plant received its specific name because its foliage was infested with a Coccus, which circumstance was drawn attention to by Mr. Lawrence, who first sent it to the describer. This condition is by no means peculiar to this species, nor is this species particularly liable to such attacks; debilitated Eucalypts of perhaps any species may become thus infested.

It is a hardy species as regards temperature, and has succeeded in many parts of the United Kingdom. Its glaucous foliage renders it a pleasing object; its foliage also emits a more than ordinarily pleasant fragrance.

It is quite a small tree, of under 20 feet in height. It has a smooth white bark, and except occasionally for firewood, I know of no use to which it is put. Its leaves do not appear to be distilled for oil. It has no vernacular or aboriginal name that I know of.

  ― 143 ―


  • 1. E. alpina, R.Br., MS.
  • 2. E. daphnoides, Miq.
  • 3. E. citryandra, (? Vilmorin).
  • 4. E. pinnata (?).

Var. parviflora, Benth.

Notes on the Synonyms.

1. E. alpina, R.Br., MS., top of Table Mountain (Robert Brown, 1802–5).

2. E. daphnoides, Miq.

22. Eucalyptus daphnoides, Miq. n. sp., ramulis densis glauco pruinosis subangulatis, veteribus fuscescentibus, foliis longiuscule petiolatis lanceolatis utrinque attenuatis apiculo curvulo terminalis, rigide coriaceis impunctatis, marginibus incrassatis, venis obtectis; pedunculis axillaribus et lateralibus 3–5 floris, floribus sessilibus, calycibus obconicis pruinosis, fructibus brevissime pedicellatis semiglobosis truncatis, capsula 5-loculari (p. 133).—Van Diemensland (Stuart n. 9.)

Petioli 2–5 lin., folia 1½–2¾ poll. longa, 2–vulgo 3 lin. lata. Calyx 2 lin. longus. Opercula desunt. (p. 134).—(Nederl. Kruidk. Arch., iv, (1856), 133.)

Stuart's specimens are from Mount Laperouse.

3. In Herb. Barbey-Boissier is a specimen of E. coccifera, labelled “Eucalyptus citryandra, Verrières près Paris, 27 Avril, 1891. Cult. Vilmorin, Gélé, 1890–1891.”

4. I have received a specimen of a Californian-grown Eucalyptus from Santa Monica, labelled E. pinnata, which may be this species. I have seen neither ripe buds nor ripe fruits.

Var. parviflora, Benth.

Flowers much smaller, the peduncles exceedingly short. Mount Fatigue, Gunn.—(B.Fl., iii, 204.) I have not seen authentic specimens of this form.

  ― 144 ―


THIS species is confined to Tasmania, and to the highest tops of the mountains. It is readily obtained on Mount Wellington, Hobart, where it is abundant at about 4,000 feet.

Following are some specimens examined:—E. alpina, R.Br., MS., Mount Wellington (R. Brown, 1802–5). Robert Gunn, Nos. 411 and 1,076; tree, 120 feet, Mount Wellington (Oldfield, in Herb. Barbey-Boissier). No. 53 of “Voyage de l”Astrolabe et de la Zélée, 1838–40,” M. le Guillou, 1841.—(Herb. Paris). Mount Laperouse (C. Stuart). Hartz Mountains (A. H. S. Lucas).


1. E. amygdalina, Labill.

This species has much the aspect of some thick-leaved forms of E. amygdalina, but is readily known by the depressed operculum and longer calyx.—(B.Fl. iii, 204.)

On Ironstone Range the buds are shorter in proportion to length, the operculum though flat, less rough, and the fruit about 4 lines diameter, thus approximating to forms of E. amygdalina.—(The Tasmanian Flora, L. Rodway.)

The affinity of this species to the alpine Tasmanian forms of E. amygdalina is undoubtedly great. The leaves of both species are very similar as regards the venation, etc. Further observations are required to absolutely settle their relations, though E. coccifera is quite a distinct species; the seedling-leaves settle this.

2. E. Risdoni, Hook. f., var. elata, Benth.

This variety and E. coccifera are so similar, as regards dried specimens, that it is frequently difficult to separate them unless a full suite of specimens be available.

  ― 145 ―

3. E. coriacea, A. Cunn.

The affinity of E. coccifera with E. coriacea, var. alpina, is so pronounced as to be apparent to the most superficial observer; but it is distinguished from that species by its more prominent and more spreading veins, showing its closer relationship to E. amygdalina. The tuberculate-corrugate surface of the flower-buds reminds one slightly of those of E. globulus, but the flat shape of the operculum of E. coccifera is quite different. The buds are very different to those of E. amygdalina and E. coriacea. The fruits of E. coccifera often display a puzzling similarity to those of E. coriacea. Both may have sunk and domed rims, but I do not call to mind any fruits of E. coriacea so angled as those of E. coccifera sometimes are.