08. Part VIII

18. XVII. Eucalyptus capitellata, Sm.

Description  211 
Synonyms  212 
Range  214 
Affinities  218 

  ― 210 ―


THIS Part mainly deals with the Stringybarks, which are recognised by every systematic botanist as being specially difficult. They afford an admirable instance of the protean character of Eucalyptus. No character in this group, at least, be it juvenile or mature leaves, flowers, fruit, bark, timber, can be relied upon as absolute. One must adhere to the type as closely as possible, and, as regards aberrant forms, indicate their affinities.

I do not wish to repeat myself at this place, and would refer my readers to my remarks on individual specimens in regard to aberrant forms. Eucalyptus trees vary according to the geological formations on which they are grown, and to the climate, apart from their innate tendency to vary. Then hybridisation plays an important part, though largely unrecognised by botanists even yet. I have dealt with these aspects of the subject at some length at p. 243.

  ― 211 ―


E. capitellata, Sm.

E. capitellata, Sm., was described by J. E. Smith, not quite satisfactorily (as was also the case with so many of the early species of this difficult genus), in White's Voyage to N. S. Wales, 216 (1790).

Then we have:—

Eucalyptus capitellata, operculo conico calyceque anguloso subancipiti, capitulis lateralibus pedunculatis solitariis.

Lid conical, and, as well as the calyx, angular, and somewhat two-edged. Heads of flowers lateral, solitary, on flower stalks.

The leaves are ovate-lanceolate, firm, astringent, but not very aromatic. We have seen no other species in which the flowers stand in little dense heads, each flower not being pedicellated so as to form an umbel. The lid is about as long as the calyx. Flower-stalk compressed, always solitary and simple.

The fruit of this species, standing on part of a branch whose leaves are fallen off, is figured in Mr. White's “Voyage,” p. 226, along with the leaves of the next species (E. piperita, Sm., J.H.M.).—(“A Specimen of the Botany of New Holland,” p. 42, 1793).note

The description was made from plants procured in the neighbourhood of Sydney, and White's figure of the fruits of E. capitellata is sufficiently good to prevent it being confused with those of any other species. Smith again described it in Trans. Linn. Soc. iii, 285 (1797). See also Wendl. Coll. 36; it is described more fully by Bentham, B.Fl. iii, 206, also by Mueller (Eucalyptographia).

There is no doubt that the type is that form of E. capitellata, Sm., which grows close to the shores of Port Jackson and its estuaries, and the rivers immediately north and south of Port Jackson. See figs. 1–6, pl. 37.

It may be described in the following words:—

A tree of medium size, often, in exposed situations, e.g., near the coast, dwarfed and gnarled.

Bark.—Often very thick and fibrous, a typical Stringybark, the rough bark sometimes extending to all but the smallest branches. Sometimes the trees have a thinner, more sub-fibrous bark, with the upper portion of the trunk and limbs smooth. Notes on the bark will be given when speaking of particular specimens.

Timber.—Brown when fresh, drying to a paler colour. A good timber for splitting and hence much used for posts, rails, buildings (formerly for shingles), and fuel. It is tough, strong, and durable.

Vernacular Names.—As a very general rule this tree is known merely as Stringybark. “Red Stringybark” is a name sometimes applied to this species in this State, in allusion to the darker colour of the wood as compared with that of E. eugenioides. It also goes under the name of “Broad-leaved Stringybark.” It is the “Mountain Stringybark” of Victoria (A. W. Howitt). J. E. Smith, op. cit., called it (following White) “Brown Gum-tree.” Messrs. Baker and Smith have suggested the name “Brown Stringybark” for this species.

Aboriginal Names.—“Yangoora” is a name given to E. capitellata and E. macrorrhyncha indiscriminately by the Gippsland aborigines, according to Howitt. The late Sir William Macarthur informed me that “Dthah-Dthaang” was the name given to E. capitellata by the blacks of the Illawarra district, and “Ngneureung” by those of the Brisbane Water district, while “Bour-rougne” was the name given by those of the Camden district (perhaps, however, to one of the forms intermediate between E. eugenioides and capitellata).

  ― 212 ―

Juvenile Foliage.—For an account of it in its earliest stages, see pages 216 and 217. In this stage I am unable to separate the leaves from those of undoubted E. macrorrhyncha; but when growing in exposed marine situations they take on a form which I now proceed to describe, and which I believe to be quite characteristic of the species.

Thick in texture, nearly orbicular, almost sessile, with a cordate base. Emarginate, or with a slight apex or none; margin sinuate or slightly crenate, besprinkled copiously with stellate hairs on the under side, the twig abundantly so; shining on the upper side.

The intermediate leaves scarcely changed in shape, but very coriaceous, and shining on both sides.

Mature Leaves.—They are very coriaceous, even when grown at a considerable distance from the sea. The leaves usually larger and coarser than those of two other Stringybarks (E. macrorrhyncha and E. eugenioides) ever are, and often very oblique, but not always so. The foliage may be described as “coarse” in its typical form.

Shining; equally green on both sides; venation spreading.

Buds.—The buds and peduncles are generally somewhat thick and angular or flattened, and contrast with the neatness of shape of those of E. eugenioides and E. macrorrhyncha.note Commonly found with a double operculum.

Flowers.—The filaments of the anthers sometimes dry dark.

Fruits.—In consequence of the fruits being sessile, or nearly so, and crowded into heads, these assume a polygonal shape at the base, as if they had been pressed together when in a plastic condition. With this exception, the fruits have the form of a very much compressed spheroid, the horizontal diameter of which is from one and a half times to twice the depth. The fruit is swollen out below the rim, which is sometimes very well defined, and of a red or brown colour. The fruit is sometimes truncate, but more frequently the rim is dome-shaped. There is great variability in the amount of exsertion of the valves. The fruit may be perfectly ripe without exserted valves, but a twig from the same tree may have them exserted.


  • 1. E. congesta, R.Br.
  • 2. E. capitellata, Sm. var. (?) latifolia, Benth.
  • 3. E. Baxteri, R.Br., and therefore E. santalifolia, F.v.M., var. (?) Baxteri, Benth.

Notes on the Synonyms.

1. E. congesta, R.Br., Port Jackson, 1804 (R. Brown, Iter Australiense, 1802–5, distributed by J. J. Bennett, 1876, under No. 4,727). Named and so labelled, “Eucalyptus congesta,” by Brown, but I am not aware that the name has been published.

2. E. capitellata, Sm. var. (?) latifolia, Benth.note

Leaves short, obliquely ovate, very thick and much more straight, the bark deciduous (Robertson). Victoria. Heath, near Portland, Robertson. Possibly a sessile-flowered form of E. santalifolia, but the form of the calyx is more that of E. capitellata, and quite different from that of E. santalifolia, var. Baxteri.—(B.Fl. iii, 206).

  ― 213 ―

The following specimens are in the National Herbarium, Sydney:—

  • (a) “Heath near Portland Bay, 20th March, 1842 (J. G. Robertson),” twigs bearing fruit.
  • (b) “Heath, 10 miles west of Roseneath, Glenelg River. Stringybark. Bark not deciduous, timber white, from 10 to 30 feet high, 21st January, 1844” (J.G. Robertson, No. 498); twigs bearing buds.
  • (c) “Heath, Steepbank Rivulet, growing at foot of 498, and supposed to be young of it, 12th June, 1843” (J.G. Robertson, No.500); juvenile foliage.

They are all E. capitellata, Sm., not differing sufficiently from the type to be called a variety. They are very close to the Port Jackson specimens, and certainly not broader leaved.

3.E. Baxteri, R.Br. (?)

E. santalifolia, F.v.M., var. (?) Baxteri. Leaves ovate, or ovate-oblong, obtuse, usually very oblique, under 3 in. long, very thick, with oblique, scarcely conspicuous veins. Penduncles thick and angular, mostly very short. Flowers closely sessile in a dense head. Calyx-tube nearly 3 lines diameter, and shorter than broad. Operculum thick and hemispherical, the buds nearly globular. Ovary flat-topped. R. Baxteri, R.Br. Herb. S. Coast, probably Kangaroo Island, Baxter (Herb. R.Br.). The heads of the flowers are very much like those of E. dumosa, var. conglobata, but the operculum, and especially the anthers, are quite different. Fruit not seen—(B.Fl.iii, 207.)

I wrote to Mr. James Britten, Department of Botany, British Museum, who kindly allowed Miss M. Smith, of Kew, to make drawings of two sheets of specimens in the herbarium under his charge. Both are twigs in flower and plump bud. One specimen bears the labels, “Eucalyptus, Mr. Wm. Baxter, received 1828; probably South Coast, perhaps Kangeroo (Brown in 1828 spelt Kangaroo thus) Island, or possibly V.D. Land” (R. Brown).

E. Baxteri, R.Br., perhaps a var. of capitellata” (Bentham).

Eucalyptus santalifolia, F.M., var. Baxteri, Benth. Fl. Austral. iii, p.207.”

The second specimen is labelled “Eucalyptus, Mr. Wm. Baxter, received 1828, E. santalifolia, F. Muell., var. Baxteri, Benth. Fl. Austral. iii, p. 207.”

Mr. Britten sent me a fragment of the type, and wrote: “I cannot make out where Bentham found the name E. Baxteri, Br., which he puts on the sheet. The plant is not described in Brown's MSS.”

The following specimens in the National Herbarium, Sydney, precisely match the above:—

  • (a) “Major Mitchell's Heath, near Portland, 20th March, 1842. Supposed 497 of J. G. R.” (J. G. Robertson, No.503)
  • (b) “Five miles from Portland, on road to Bridgewater Bay. Shrub 6-10 feet high. 5th February, 1844.” (J.G. Robertson, No. 497.)

Both these specimens are in flower and early fruit; No. 503 is in ripe fruit also. Both are E. capitellata, Sm. Some of the leaves of the Portland Bay specimens resemble those of some Victorian and South Australian specimens of

  ― 214 ―
E. Muelleriana, Howitt (E. pilularis, Sm., var. Muelleriana, Maiden), but the buds and fruit are different, the buds especially so. In a word, Robertson's 497, 498, 500, 503 are conspecific, in spite of the fact that under var. (?) latifolia Bentham draws attention to a certain difference in the shape of the calyx.

Bentham's inclusion of Baxter's specimens under E. santalifolia, F.v.M. (E. diversifolia, Bonpl.), is a mistake.E. diversifolia has uniformly narrower leaves, not to mention other points. At the same time, the geographical limits of E. capitellata, Sm., E. diversifolia, Bonpl., and E. Muelleriana, Howitt, unite near the Victorian-South Australian boundary, and botanists would do well to be on their guard not to commit the very pardonable error of confusing them with imperfect material. Portland Bay is on the south coast, 230 miles west of Melbourne, and about the same distance east of Adelaide.

I have recently received the same form from Portland (Mr. Adams, through Mr. A.E. Kitson), also specimens from Dagholm, also in Victoria (A.W. Howitt).


THIS species is confined to New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia.


It has already been stated that the type came from Port Jackson. Around Sydney it appears to be almost (perhaps entirely) confined to the sandstone.

Northern Districts.—The following coastal specimens are strictly typical:— Morriset (A. Murphy). “Bark deeply furrowed, timber good.” “This species has always yellow inner bark,” Wyee (A. Murphy); Wallsend (W. W. Froggatt); Port Stephens district (A. Rudder).

The following northern specimens depart more or less from the type:—Small-fruited and therefore small-budded form, Booral district, 29th October, 1895 (A. Rudder). The small fruits and pointed buds depart from the type. Some botanists may look upon it as a var. of E. eugenioides with very exsert valves. See fig. 9, pl. 38. “Stringybark, Lawrence, Clarence River district.” (J.V. de Coque.)

The most northerly locality from which we have it is the Round Mountain, Guy Fawkes Range, 4,250 feet above the sea, and about 50 miles east of Armidale, on the Grafton road. (J.H.M.) Buds as compressed as it is possible for them to be. Fruits large and hemispherical. From the material available there may be room for opinion as to whether this is E. capitellata or E. macrorrhyncha, but the buds, at least, incline me to the view that it is E. capitellata.

  • (a) Near Apsley Falls, Walcha, No.1,217, R. H. Cambage (E. C. Andrews) is identical with the preceding.

  •   ― 215 ―
  • (b) Fourteen miles east of Deepwater at 4,000 feet, No.1,219, Cambage (E.C. Andrews). In intermediate foliage only, but doubtless identical with the preceding.
  • (c) Near Swamp Oak, Walcha, No.1,218, Cambage (E.C. Andrews) has a very short pedicel and is one of the specimens which show how difficult, and perhaps impossible, it is to say what line of demarcation there is between E. capitellata and E. macrorrhyncha.

Southern Localities.—E. capitellata in its strictly typical form is found for a considerable distance along the coast. The following trees a few miles inland are somewhat aberrant. For a southern tree (Clyde Mountain) see also p. 217 infra.

Bowral to Wombeyan (J.H.M. and R.H. Cambage); Yellowish tip-cat buds, normal juvenile foliage.

At Hilltop, near Mittagong, N.S.W., there is a variety locally known as “Blue-leaf Stringybark.” It is so called because the leaves, especially in the sunlight, are observed to have a bluish cast, and this bluish appearance (especially noticeable in the young leaves) is largely retained on drying for the herbarium. The tops of the trees can be readily noticed amongst the other foliage from a neighbouring eminence. The fruits are in spherical clusters, and I wrote (Agric. Gaz., N.S.W., vii, 268, May, 1896) that if it were desirable to distinguish this tree as a variety of eugenioides, the name agglomerata would be very suitable. (See also Deane and Maiden, Proc. Linn. Soc., 1896, p. 806.) See fig. 6, pl. 38.

I look upon this as one of the forms intermediate between E. eugenioides and E. capitellata. On account of the juvenile leaves, and of the fruits, I believe it to be nearer the latter than the former. The silvery or bluish cast of some Eucalyptus trees as they grow in the forest merits further inquiry. It is probable that several species present this appearance, perhaps at some seasons, and in some localities more than others. I have noticed typical E. eugenioides in the Blue Mountains, with a “silver top.”

The fruits of the tree now under notice precisely resemble those of Nye's Hill, Wingello. 8/99 (J.L. Boorman).

The juvenile leaves precisely match those from Mt. Spiraby, near Tenterfield (J.H.M.). They also precisely match those of what may be termed the Blue Mountains form of E. capitellata (infra, p. 216).

Other evidence as to connecting links between E. capitellata and E. eugenioides will be found under the latter species, see p. 238. Here I show that there are specimens which, as regards their fruits, should come under E. eugenioides, but their juvenile foliage is broad enough for E. capitellata.

“White Stringybark.”—Tall trees, white bark, good timber, leaves bluish tint, easily distinguished from “red” in the bush by the more robust growth. Nye's Hill, Wingello, 8/99 (J. L. Boorman). The fruits are as small as those of E. eugenioides, but compressed like those of E. capitellata. They precisely resemble

  ― 216 ―
those of the Hill-top Blue-leaf Stringybark, just referred to. The “bluish tint” of the leaves is also similar. Buds stellate, and strongly resemble those of E. eugenioides when young; coarse and angular like those of E. capitellata when more mature.

The following two specimens are instructive:—

  • (a) Berrima, September, 1901 (J.H.M. and J.L. Boorman).—Here we have fruits very similar to those of E. capitellata from Wingello, 8/99 (J. L. Boorman), and if not identical with them then intermediate between E. eugenioides and E. capitellata.
  • (b) Then we have a second series of specimens from Berrima, 9/01 (J.H.M. and J. L. Boorman), with the buds eugenioides-like and with the fruit hemispherical and capitellate. Figures will explain these two forms, which seem to be intermediate between eugenioides and capitellata. I place (a) with E. capitellata and (b) with E. eugenioides. (See fig. 7, pl.38.)

Western Localities.—I now turn to a form which may provisionally be referred to as the Blue Mountains form of the species, because it is so readily studied there, but it also occurs coastwards and southwards.

The following accountnote was prepared by Mr. R. H. Cambage and myself (only an unimportant addition has been made):—

We now draw attention to a Eucalypt from the Blue Mountains, which has almost invariably gone under the name of E. capitellata, Sm., but which is worthy of special remark.

Bark.—Not a perfect Stringybark, as compared, e.g., with macrorrhyncha, which is more fibrous. The more fibrous bark is yellowish; close to the wood it is white. Has clean limbs, at times slightly ribbony.

Reference to the bark being not a typical Stringybark is borne out by the Mount Wilson name, which is Messmate. Mr. H. Deane, at Blackheath, some years ago, called it a Peppermint bark, and suggested hybridism.

On a specimen from Jenolan Caves, the collector (W. F. Blakely) has a note, “Bark on the lower portion of the stem light reddish-brown in colour, resembling Stringybark; upper portion, grey; branches, yellowish-green.”


Juvenile Leaves.— The margins undulate, and with a reddish rim when fresh. The leaves roughish, particularly on the lower side, owing to the presence of stellate hairs which are also on the edges of the leaves and on the twigs.

In the intermediate stage they are Eugenia-like and shining on both sides, only very slightly darker on the upper side.

The branches are brittle and appear to be much less fibrous than those of E. eugenioides in the vicinity.

Mature Leaves.—Resemble those of typical E. capitellata.

Buds.—Clavate. Mount Wilson specimens, and others from the higher parts of the Blue Mountains, show the buds rugose, after the fashion, though not so well marked, as some from Victoria.

Flowers.—Anthers reniform.

Fruits.—Packed in a dense head; often white dotted. In the ripe fruits valves well exsert, rather more so than in E. macrorrhyncha. Indeed, the Rev. Dr. Woolls labelled the Mount Wilson specimens E. macrorrhyncha.

In that species, however, the rim remains domed in mature fruits, while in this Blue Mountains form of E. capitellata the rim is turned outwards till it becomes almost a continuation of the calyx.

  ― 217 ―

Habitat.—We have collected this form from Woodford to Cox's River (Bowenfels) and the Jenolan Caves, and also at Mount Wilson. Further localities to connect with the coast will be looked for. The most westerly locality from which it has been obtained is Mudgee, where it is called “Silvertop” (which points to a bluish cast) according to Mr. R. T. Baker, who collected it; also Corricudgy Mount, R. T. Baker, October, 1897.

We have the same form on the Clyde Mountain (southern mountain ranges), No.31, W. Baeuerlen, July, 1890.

In the Outer Domain, Sydney, we have an interesting tree, which is au naturel, and which attracts attention from the fact that it is more “bark-bound” than the majority of E. capitellata trees around Port Jackson, that is to say, the bark, though fibrous in texture, is thinner, denser, and more closely appressed to the trunk.

The juvenile leaves and the intermediate leaves depart from the type, being narrower, more lanceolate, and more closely resemble those of the Blue Mountains form just referred to.

Incidentally, it may be remarked that the orbicular suckers of E. capitellata from type localities (Port Jackson) would appear to be a product of an exposed situation. All the forms of E. capitellata appear to have more or less lanceolate juvenile leaves in their earliest stage.

Seedlings raised from typical capitellata trees early take on a lanceolar shape with entire margins. This is succeeded by an undulate margin, with stellate hairs on the leaves and on the irregularly-toothed margin and twigs. These display a complete similarity to those of the Blue Mountains, and it seems impossible to assume that they do not belong to the same species. It would appear impossible to seize on characters even to make a well-defined variety.

Both of us have independently grown seedlings from Port Jackson and Port Hacking seed, and we cannot see any difference between the seedlings and those of the Blue Mountains trees.


There are two coastal forms of E. capitellata, as might be expected from the extensive geographical range of the species—the New South Wales, and the Victorian-South Australian.

Howitt states in his “Eucalypts of Gippsland” that he has not seen it growing there at a less elevation than 500 feet, and that it cannot, therefore, strictly speaking, be called one of the littoral species. In New South Wales, and also near the Victorian-South Australian border, it, however, often grows quite close to the sea.

Mr. Howitt writes privately—“ E. capitellata grows to a large size in the mountain districts, for instance, Moondarra, Wandin Yallock, and elsewhere in the Yarra watershed. In the western district the tree has usually a dwarfed habit.”

See also my observations on the Victorian specimens referred to E. capitellata, var. (?) latifolia and E. Baxteri, supra, p. 213.

Form with rugose buds.—I now place together some further plants of this species with more or less rugose buds. I have already drawn attention to the subject,note and think that this tuberculate appearance will be found to be somewhat common now that attention has been invited to it. The specimens from Mount Lofty, South Australia (M. Koch) may be compared.

I do not name this rugose-budded form as a variety, but, in view of the difficulty of “breaking down” such a widely-diffused and variable species as E. capitellata, it seems well to point out any prominent characters, to aid in classification.

  ― 218 ―

Grampians, 2,000 feet, Victoria (H. B. Williamson). These specimens, as regards the broad leaves and fruits, are very similar to the coastal Victorian form, but the buds (both calyx and operculum) are markedly rugose. Specimens also from the Grampians (C. Walter) have narrower leaves (nearer the type). The fruits are more pear-shaped, but there were only three in the umbel, and they are not much compressed. The specimens do not really differ from the preceding.

Darlimurla, S. Gippsland (H. Deane). The leaves and fruits typical (fruits slightly pedicellate), but the buds rugose. Fruits a little small.

All these specimens are practically alike. They are all E. capitellata, Sm. In their rugose buds they undoubtedly show affinity to E. alpina, Lindl.


Sandy rises covered with fern undergrowth, Narracoorte (W. Gill). Clavate, scarcely angular buds, with domed fruits, valves well exsert.

Mount Lofty, South Australia (R. H. Cambage, 20th March, 1901, also W. Gill). Short, broadish leaves, ovoid, shiny, slightly tuberculate buds, almost sessile, squat, conoid to hemispherical domed fruits. See fig. 11, pl. 37.

Stringybark, Mount Lofty Ranges (Max Koch, September, 1902). The figures (fig. 1, pl. 38) show the remarkable variation in the shape of the fruits in this tree. Buds rather small, some with conical operculum, and some with clavate shape of buds; many of them slightly rugose. I doubt if the Mount Lofty specimens can be separated from those labelled “Eucalyptus fabrorum, Schlechtendal. In montibus steriorilibus elatis, November, 1848. Dr. Mueller” (probably Mount Lofty, South Australia); see this Work, Part i, p. 40; Cf. also Part ii, p. 60.


  • 1. E. eugenioides, Sieb. See under E. eugenioides, p. 239.
  • 2. E. Muelleriana, Howitt. See under E. Muelleriana, p. 224.
  • 3. E. macrorrhyncha, F.v.M. See under E. macrorrhyncha, p. 230.
  • 4. E. santalifolia, F.v.M.

E. santalifolia agrees with E. capitellata in the almost total absence of flower-stalklets, but it attains not the size of a large tree, the leaves are smaller, more rigid, of a lighter green, less conspicuously veined, and not remarkably inequilateral, the flowers are generally less numerous on each stalk, the calyces are larger, with wider tube and longer lid, the stamens not inflexed before expansion, the anthers more cordate than renate, and the fruits usually smaller, not to speak of the seedlings of the two species, those of E. capitellata, according to specimens transmitted by the Rev. Dr. Woolls, being star-hairy and producing leaves narrow-lanceolar (sic, J.H.M.) though rounded at the base also.—(Eucalyptographia, under E. santalifolia).

I have already dealt with the affinity of these two species; see p. 213.

  • 5. E. alpina, Lindl. I have made some observations on the affinities of these two species, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 1904, p. 766.

19. XVIII. Eucalyptus Muelleriana, Howitt.

Variation in this and other Stringybarks  219 
Affinities (E. Wilkinsoniana, R. T. Baker, and E. nigra, R. T. Baker, are here considered)  220 

  ― 219 ―


E. Muelleriana, Howitt.

(For Description, Synonomy, Range, &c., see Part I, as E. pilularis, var. Muelleriana.)

IN dealing with the Stringybarks, I have been vainly looking for characters which will differentiate all forms. For example, I have endeavoured to separate them by the seedling or juvenile leaves (width, and the presence or absence of stellate hairs). But I find that these characters, like all others in Eucalypts, vary. The state of ripeness of the fruits counts for much, the state of being capitate counts for little in classification. The juvenile leaves of Stringybarks (viz., E. capitellata, macrorrhyncha, eugenioides, Muelleriana) appear to be beset with hairs, more or less,—Muelleriana, perhaps, least of all. Those of E. eugenioides are usually narrowest. Those of E. capitellata and E. macrorrhyncha are broader, though the latter are usually narrower than the former. Those of E. Muelleriana vary much in width, and are sometimes very narrow. “The extremely shiny upper surface” of the leaves of this species (Howitt) characteristic of the type, unfortunately for purposes of classification, breaks down in some of its forms.

An instructive series of specimens was collected by Mr. A. W. Howitt,— (a) Armidale, New South Wales, with narrow juvenile foliage; (b) between Chandler and Styx Rivers: “Up to 50 feet, bark stringy to smaller limbs and branches.” This has juvenile foliage of intermediate width. (c) Styx River and Armidale: “A Stringybark tree, tall, up to 60 or 70 feet.” The opposed juvenile leaves up to one inch and a half wide; (a), (b), (c) belong to the same species; the transition between them is evident.

I have received from Mr. A. W. Howitt seedlings and other juvenile foliage of his typical E. Muelleriana, from Long Cutting, Tambo River, Victoria. The seedling leaves are half an inch in diameter, while the juvenile leaves, still in the opposite stage, are an inch and a quarter broad, with the stellate hairs so common in the Stringybarks. I cannot point out any differences between these juvenile leaves and those of the New South Wales (a), (b), (c) just referred to. The leaves of (a) are as narrow as those of E. eugenioides, while those of (c) are broader than those of E. Muelleriana were formerly supposed to be. Examining them from all points, I am of opinion that different botanists may look upon them as belonging to E. eugenioides, or to a small-fruited form of E. Muelleriana.

E. Muelleriana appears to have a number of associated forms closely related to it, and, for that and other reasons, I think it is better to look upon it as a species, and not as a variety. I, therefore, modify my views as to the rank of E. Muelleriana, as expressed in Part I of this work.

  ― 220 ―

The fruits of typical E. Muelleriana are, on the average, about half an inch in diameter. It might be desirable to give the small-fruited forms (i.e., those about a quarter of an inch in diameter, or rather more) a name, for it is they which show transit to and are confused with E. eugenioides. It might be desirable to renew the variety name minor which was applied to forms of E. lœvopinea by Mr. Baker, but, as regards myself, I must say that I am unable to define the small-fruited forms as distinct from E. eugenioides. They are simply portions of a curve.

E. Muelleriana is known as “Yellow Stringybark,” from the yellowness of the inner bark, which yellowness also often exhibits itself as a stain more or less marked throughout the wood. At one time I hoped that this yellowness (where evidence of its presence is available) might be a useful diagnostic character. It is certainly useful sometimes, but it breaks down in that it is observable in E. eugenioides and other species. The presence of this colouring matter in various trees is worthy of investigation by the chemist, as it may be of some aid to diagnosis not clearly understood at present. I have spoken of the yellow colour being present in species other than Muelleriana; I now give an instance of its absence from Muelleriana. “Pale Stringybark,” Mt. Lofty, S.A. (R. H. Cambage, 20th March, 1901); also, same locality (Walter Gill, Nov., 1901). Mr. Gill adds the note “The inner bark has none of the bright yellow colour of the Wingello, New South Wales, trees you and I felled in March.” The Wingello trees are typical Muelleriana. See Part I, p. 40.

The Mt. Lofty specimens have duller buds and fruits, shape of fruits some-what pear-shaped, rim well defined, reddish-brown, slightly domed, tips of valves slightly exsert. The fruits are reminiscent of those of some South Australian specimens of E. diversifolia, Bonpl.


1. E. pilularis, Sm.

Its affinity to E. pilularis, Sm., I have abundantly made clear in Part I of this work. I sometimes cannot separate them on herbarium specimens. E. semicorticata, F.v.M., Brisbane River (received by me from Kew), has the pointed buds of E. pilularis, and the fruits of E. Muelleriana. I can only repeat that E. Muelleriana cannot be separated by hard lines from E. pilularis.

2. E. eugenioides, Sieb.

I do not know on what character—juvenile foliage, mature foliage, buds, fruits, bark, timber, E. Muelleriana (in its small-fruited forms) can be absolutely separated from E. eugenioides, Sieb. I have already touched on this point, both under E. eugenioides and in my preliminary remarks under E. Muelleriana. That being so, I cannot find fault with a botanist who does not see eye to eye with me in

  ― 221 ―
regard to the placing of this and that intermediate specimen in one species or the other. This is inconvenient, but the convenience of taxonomists has to give way to the grand law of variation.

I look upon E. Wilkinsoniana, R. T. Baker, and E. nigra, R. T. Baker, as being inseparable from E. eugenioides on the one hand and from E. Muelleriana on the other,note and I have made careful investigations in the forest.

E. Wilkinsoniana, R. T. Baker, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., xxv, 678 (1900). Syn. according to Mr. Baker. E. hæmastoma,note Sm. var. (Mueller in Eucalyptographia Dec. 2); E. lævopinea, var. minor, Baker.

The affinity of E. Wilkinsoniana with E. Muelleriana is an inference already made by Mr. Baker, partly on oil determination, but made by me on morphological grounds. Mr. Baker's original view was that this tree is a small-fruited form of E. Muelleriana (his lævopinea) and I think that that view has much to support it. It, however, ignores the obvious relation to E. eugenioides.

The type of E. Wilkinsoniana came from Marulan, also Barber's Creek (H. J. Rumsey). Specimens were sent to me also from the Glenrock paddocks, Barber's Creek, by H. J. Rumsey. Type specimens also from Sutton Forest (R. T. Baker). All these localities are very familiar to me, and the tree was collected by me long before it was described. Specimens from Burragorang (R. T. Cambage) and many other localities also match the type.

The fruits vary a good deal. See the remarkable differences of the forms of two heads of fruits from the same branch at Barber's Creek (H. J. Rumsey, the original collector of the type specimens). See fig. 17, pl. 38.

Mr. Baker's statement in his description of E. Wilkinsoniana that E. lævopinea never has a red rim appears to be founded on a misapprehension.

An extreme form of the fruits (from Sutton Forest) is that shown in the figure of E. Wilkinsoniana (Pl. 38, fig. 18). I have precisely the same form from 1 mile south-west of Parramatta, Wianamatta Shale formation (R. H. Cambage). Sometimes (e.g., same place and collector) the fruits are more constricted at the orifice, showing transit to E. pilularis. This shape of fruit is common enough in typical Muelleriana, whose fruits are, however, larger. Following is the same form.

E. pilularis, Sm., Gladesville, Sydney (H. Deane, May, 1886; J. L. Boorman, Dec., 1898) normal apparently in every other respect except that the size and shape of the fruits very closely approximate that of E. Wilkinsoniana figured at pl. 38, fig. 18.

The fruits of E. lævopinea, R. T. Baker, from Gulf Road, Rylstone (R. T. Baker) display such variation in size and shape as to have caused differences of views as to the species. For example, in Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 1896, 803,

  ― 222 ―
and 813, Mr. Deane and I referred some of them to an abnormal form of E. macrorrhyncha, between it and capitellata. That they are identical with E. Muelleriana, Howitt, has since been shown, but I would point out the resemblance in shape to those of some fruits of E. Wilkinsoniana.

The white-dotted appearance of the fruits common in E. Muelleriana is common on those of other Stringybarks, e.g., E. eugenioides and E. Wilkinsoniana and E. nigra.

The granular or roughened appearance of the rim which is specially common in E. Muelleriana is seen also in E. Wilkinsoniana, E. macrorrhyncha (e.g., Barber's Creek), and other forms.

The pale-coloured shiny buds of E. Muelleriana are seen also in E. Wilkinsoniana.

The depressed hemispherical fruit seen in E. Wilkinsoniana is common in northern E. Muelleriana and E. eugenioides.

Many other specimens (some are figured, e.g., 17 and 18, pl. 38) could be cited, showing that E. Wilkinsoniana cannot be considered a species apart from E. Muelleriana.

Let us now consider E. nigra, R. T. Baker, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., xxv, 689 (1900).

The type specimens of E. nigra, R. T. Baker, have usually thin rims to the fruit, and the tips of the valves barely protrude. They appear to be precisely matched by Kanimbla Valley (A. H. S. Lucas, March, 1900; J.H.M., February, 1901), a typical Stringybark (with yellow inner bark), and from the same tree I collected the broad-rimmed fruits of E. Muelleriana (see fig. 14, pl. 38). In other words, the fruits of E. nigra are not always thin-rimmed, varying, in this respect, in the same tree.

The leaves, buds, flowers, and fruits show that E. nigra cannot be separated from those of E. Muelleriana, although I have made earnest endeavours, extending over a long period, to separate them. The type-specimens come from Ballina, Richmond River, and Canterbury, Sydney.

E. nigra is, in my view, one of the forms which form part of the series between E. eugenioides and E. Muelleriana, and we have here but another instance of the protean forms of the Stringybarks.

I believe that Mr. Baker's E. nigra even extends to Victoria, and that the specimen, Upper Yarra, October, 1889 (C. Walter), looked upon by me as a remarkable form showing transit between E. regnans, F.v.M., and E. vitrea, R. T. Baker (see Part VII, fig. 5, pl. 34), may be looked upon as a form of

  ― 223 ―
E. Muelleriana (or of E. eugenioides, Sieb., as Messrs. Luehmann and Walter imagined it to be). In Eucalypts which are aberrant (and this remark applies more or less to other genera) it is often the case that they may be referred to more than one species, according to the point of view.note

As to the reputed inferior quality of the timber of E. nigra as compared with E. eugenioides, I have some timber of the former which seems as good as any of the latter; indeed, I cannot tell any difference between the two. I would suggest that the reputed inferiority of E. nigra timber is owing to local causes.

In northern New South Wales (e.g., “Stringybark,” Acacia Creek, Macpherson Range, W. Dunn (No. 72), and “Woolly-butt,” Armidale district, H. A. Perrott) we have Stringybarks with broader juvenile leaves than those of typical Muelleriana, the fruit smaller, and sometimes a little angled. The juvenile leaves appear to be quite identical with specimens from Eden, in the extreme southeast of New South Wales, collected by Howitt, and referred to E. eugenioides.

The tree also occurs in southern Queensland, e.g., Stanthorpe (A. Murphy), “the common Stringybark of the district, runs out near Warwick.”

In one point at least (the angularity of the fruit) this last specimen shows some affinity to the pear-shaped fruited series which connects E. macrorrhyncha and E. Muelleriana (see p. 229).

The leaves, buds, and some of the fruits precisely match Mr. Baker's E. nigra, and I cannot separate them from the small-fruited form of E. Muelleriana, on the one hand, nor from E. eugenioides on the other. I think their proper place is transit between E. Muelleriana and E. eugenioides. These northern specimens connect with those from the (a), (b), (c) from the Armidale district, already referred to (p. 219).

Mr. Baker also records E. nigra from Cook's River, Sydney. I am of opinion that these specimens are referable to E. eugenioides, the size and shape of whose fruits is very variable in the Sydney as well as in other districts.

These difficulties of nomenclature and hesitancy to attribute some forms definitely to one species to the exclusion of others arises from the realisation, which presents itself to a philosophic mind, that in nature we have an infinite gradation of forms—a fact which is increasingly brought home to us as our knowledge of them increases. A knowledge of the oil-contents of the cells of the leaves is a contribution to such knowledge; but we must be on our guard that we do not allow ourselves to be unduly influenced by this, but should balance it fairly with evidence obtained in other lines of investigation.

  ― 224 ―

3. E. capitellata, Sm.

I have shown, in dealing with Victorian and South Australian specimens (p. 213), how difficult it sometimes is to separate E. Muelleriana from E. capitellata. Typical suckers of E. capitellata may be different enough. The test as to the coriaceous character of the leaves breaks down, e.g., I have very coriaceous leaves of typical E. Muelleriana from Wingello, N.S.W., while west and north coriaceous leaves of E. Muelleriana are particularly abundant. That E. Muelleriana and E. capitellata run into each other I have no doubt.

4. E. macrorrhyncha, F.v.M.

Turning to observations under E. macrorrhyncha, I am simply unable to separate E. Muelleriana and E. macrorrhyncha in some northern New South Wales and southern Queensland forms. The figures (10–13, pl. 38) will explain my meaning. Some of the northern forms may be looked upon by some botanists as referable to E. capitellata; indeed, I cannot say in what important character they differ from the Victorian-South Australian specimens referred to under E. capitellata.

The following notes on E. Muelleriana seedlings refer to the type plants in Victoria. I have already pointed out, however, that the seedling leaves vary:—

In E. macrorrhyncha the seedlings are also more or less beset with tufts of hairs, giving the stems a rough appearance, but in a less degree than the last-named species (E. capitellata). The leaves, at first opposed, are lanceolar in form, and slightly shiny. The seedlings of E. Muelleriana are as characteristic as those of any other species known to me. The stem and stalklets are slightly tufted with hairs, or are even smooth; the leaves rather long, lanceolar, pointed, and opposed throughout, even in seedlings of a foot or more in height, while their extremely shiny upper surface distinguishes this form from all the other species of this group [my italics, J.H.M.], being more marked even than in E. obliqua, from which the persistent opposition of the leaves readily distinguishes it.—(Howitt, Trans. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. 2, pp. 92–3.)

20. XIX. Eucalyptus macrorrhyncha, F. v. Mueller.

Description  225 
Synonyms  226 
Range  227 
Affinities  230 

  ― 225 ―


E. macrorrhyncha, F.v.M.

MUELLER (Census, &c.) quotes “First General Report of the Government Botanist of Victoria, 1853,” as the authority for this name. It is there spelt as I have given it. The species was not, however, described until Vol. iii of the “Flora Australiensis” (1866). See B.Fl. iii, 207, and Mueller's “Eucalyptographia.”

This, in its typical form, is a very easily recognised species. The buds are, when fully developed, large, rhomboidal in longitudinal section, with pointed operculum, and the pedicels are long, so that the flowers and fruits form loose heads.

Vernacular Names.—It is usually known as “Stringybark” merely, but by comparison with E. eugenioides as “Red Stringybark.” According to Howitt, it is known as “Mountain Stringybark” in Gippsland, a name to which in this State the other Stringybarks have also some claim. It is the common Stringybark of the north-eastern districts of Victoria, and appears to be quite absent from the coast districts of New South Wales.

Juvenile Foliage (figured in the Eucalyptographia).—The leaves may be described as follows:—Elliptical, margins undulate and irregularly toothed. Small tufts of hairs along the margin. The twigs, midribs and veins, and even the soft tissue more or less besprinkled with stellate hairs, the twigs abundantly so.

Mature Leaves.—Usually 4 to 6 inches long and 1 to 1¼ inches wide. Rather coriaceous, equally green on both sides. Venation spreading, prominent, particularly the midrib. Intra-marginal vein at some distance from the edge. Twigs and leaf-stalks angular.

Buds.—These are strongly pedicellate, and the edge of the calyx tube forms a prominent ring, while the operculum is often curved; acuminate and often lengthened out into a point. In the matter of shape one cannot help likening them to those of E. rostrata, which, however, are small in comparison.

The buds are usually more or less angular, and in the typical form are very angular. In extreme forms the angularity disappears.

Fruits.—These vary somewhat in shape and size, but, owing to the long pedicels, the prominent edge to the rim, and the domed top, they can usually be recognised.

They vary as to amount of doming, so that eventually, in some specimens, the rim is obliterated. Valves well exsert.

The diameter of typical fruits is not much more than ? inch at its greatest (rim) width.

A particularly large-fruited form has been collected by Mr. R. T. Baker in the Rylstone district, where trees with fruits of ordinary size are also found. Large fruits (not so large as the Rylstone ones) are also found with the ordinary ones at Howell (J.H.M.).

Timber.—This seems in every respect to resemble that of E. capitellata. It is the common Gold-fields Stringybark, and its timber is brown.

  ― 226 ―


  • 1. Var. (?) brachycorys, Benth.
  • 2. E. scyphoidea, Naudin.

Notes on the Synonyms.

Var. (?) brachycorys, Benth.

Operculum short and obtuse. Fruit of E. macrorrhyncha. Expanded flowers not seen, and therefore affinities uncertain. New England, N.S.W., Stringybark, C. Stuart—B.Fl. iii, 207.

The variety brachycorys, mentioned by Bentham, seems transferable to E. capitellata, unless, indeed, it should prove distinct from both, when as a species it could be kept apart under the above designation.—(Mueller, Eucalyptographia, under E. macrorrhyncha.)

The variety brachycorys, doubtfully referred by Bentham to E. macrorrhyncha from New England (near Timbarra) at elevations about 2,000 feet, may possibly be a form of E. capitellata, with which it shares the blunt lid, though the calyces are attenuated into distinct and slender stalklets; but the bark of this tree, though stringy, is said to be separating in patches, and, curiously enough, the tree is locally called Spotted Gum tree.note The fruits are rather more depressed. Expanded flowers remained unknown.—(Eucalyptographia, under E. capitellata.)

I have seen Stuart's specimens, and they have thick leaves, with well-marked venation. Buds rounded, shining. Fruits sharply rimmed and grooved. Fig. 14, pl. 39, makes this form clear.

I cannot agree that it is a variety, and Bentham was himself doubtful on that point. It is an unstable form and it touches the normal form and adjacent species in various ways. It is especially common in the Northern Districts.

The sharpness of the rim, which seems to be the most pronounced character, appears to be accidental, and to be less accentuated as ripening of the fruit proceeds. It is seen in specimens from widely different localities, e.g., Cootamundra to Grenfell (A. Osborne); Borenore (H. Deane); Canoblas, Orange (A. W. Howitt); Capertee and Sunny Corner (J.H.M. and J. L. Boorman); Emmaville (E. C. Andrews).

2. E. scyphoidea, Naudin.

I do not know where it was described.

Copy of a label, in Herb. Mus. Paris, in M. Naudin's handwriting:—

Eucalyptus scyphoidea, Ndn. Species nova. Trouvé dans le jardin Nabonnand au Golfe Juan. Arbre unique dans le pays. Villa Thuret, 1899. Ch. Ndn.”—(Maiden, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 1903.)

It is a form of E. macrorrhyncha, commonest in the Northern Districts, which, with var. (?) brachycorys, is simply indistinguishable from the normal species. It has buds nearly normal, while the fruit tends to the spherical shape that is common in many specimens of this species, as will be readily seen from examination of the figures.

  ― 227 ―


E. macrorrhyncha is found in Victoria (where the type came from), South Australia, New South Wales, and southern Queensland.


As regards its range in Gippsland, Mr. A. W. Howitt states, “It commences at Glen Maggie, on the dry Silurian ridges, extends all along the stony ranges flanking the valley, and reaches an altitude of about 3,000 feet on the track leading up from the Wellington to the Snowy Plains.”

Mueller gives its range “On comparatively sterile ridges and ranges, chiefly of the Silurian formation, widely and often gregariously distributed through much of the wooded country of Victoria, for instance towards the Upper Yarra and in the Dandenong Ranges; thence to the mountains of Gippsland easterly, to the Mitta Mitta and Hume River northerly, the Avoca and the Pyrenees westerly, and towards Cape Otway southerly in our colony.”—(Eucalyptographia, under E. macrorrhyncha.)

Following are aberrant forms. Small, glaucous, pointed buds like those of E. eugenioides. Oil-glands of leaves prominent. Fruits typical macrorrhyncha. Buchan, North Gippsland (A. W. Howitt).

A closely-allied form from Stawell (A. W. Howitt) has the buds glabrous and even shining. The fruits are less typical than those of the preceding specimen, being closer to capitellata.


In South Australia E. macrorrhyncha is confined to the Adelaide district, according to the late Prof. Tate.


In this State it is found along the Dividing Range and Table Land from south to north. It goes down the western slopes, and on the spurs of the main range, and on the isolated ranges some distance into the interior. The most westerly localities actually recorded are the Harvey and Warrumbungle Ranges.

Southern Localities.—Quiedong, near Bombala (W. Baeuerlen); Bombala to Delegate (J.H.M.); Tantawanglo Mountain, Cathcart, Montgomery's Mill (H. Deane); Gungahleen (Goldbrough, Mort, & Co.), with thick, short leaves and strongly marked venation; Tumut (W. W. Froggatt); Gundagai (H. Deane); Barber's Creek (H. J. Rumsey), with swollen, insect-punctured buds as already figured in E. stellulata. Bowral to Wombeyan Caves, 1 mile east (J.H.M. and R. H. Cambage) with narrowish, lanceolate suckers, not quite at the youngest stage.

  ― 228 ―

Fruits with very sharp rim; little doming, or a concavity rather than a convexity, Cootamundra to Grenfell (Dist. Forester Arthur Osborne); Weddin, near Young, normal (J.H.M.)

Borenore, near Forbes (H. Deane) with fruits similar to those from Cootamundra, &c., and which resemble those of var. (?) brachycorys.

Western Localities.—Hassan's Walls, Bowenfels (J.H.M.); Capertee and Sunny Corner, with remarkably angular rim to fruits (J.H.M. and J. L. Boorman). These specimens, as far as leaves and fruits are concerned, are close to var. (?) brachycorys, but the buds are those of the New England form.

Rylstone (R. T. Baker); Mudgee (W. Woolls). Fruits rather smaller than the type.

A coarse grandiflora form with the fruits ? inch in diameter, the rim very prominent and urceolate in shape, was collected by R. T. Baker at Mt. Vincent, also at Rylstone. (Fig. 19, pl. 39.)

Perth, found only in the Ranges around Apsley; small stunted trees used for props in the mines adjacent (J. L. Boorman).

“Red Stringybark,” buds swollen like those of E. stellulata, Canoblas, Orange; ditto (A. W. Howitt), with rim of fruit as sharp as seen in var. (?) brachycorys, Ophir, Orange (R. H. Cambage); Wellington (A. Murphy).

Near top of Mt. Bulaway, Warrumbungle Ranges, at 3,000 feet (W. Forsyth). The angularity of the rim in these fruits is nearly obliterated, and the pedicels are very short. The opercula are pointed, but far less sharp than those of normal macrorrhyncha usually are. That this tree is a strong connecting link between E. capitellata and E. macrorrhyncha is unquestionable. A form with normal fruits is also found in the Warrumbungle Ranges (W. Forsyth).

Minore, near Dubbo, perhaps the most westerly locality in this herbarium (J. L. Boorman). Buds less angular than the type.

Harvey Range, near Dubbo (J. L. Boorman). Small crooked trees of 15–20 feet. Leaves very thick and shiny, and with veins well marked. In some trees the fruits hemispherical and much resembling those of var. (?) brachycorys. In others, the fruits hardly to be distinguished from those of E. tereticornis, Sm.

The Meadows, Dubbo district; used for fencing-posts and charcoal (Assistant Forester A. R. Samuels). The buds remarkably like those of E. rostrata, so much so, that a word of caution is necessary. This is not an unusual thing in Western forms, but the anthers and the venation of the leaves are very different.

Northern Localities.—But it is as we travel north, farthest away from the home of the type, that the aberrant forms become most plentiful. The doming of the rim is usually a very good guide in this species, but sometimes this character is not well defined, and the rim must then be interpreted with caution.

  ― 229 ―

On New England the tendency of the leaves is to become smaller and more coriaceous, and the buds to become less to more angularnote than the type, the operculum shorter and the fruit more pear-shaped. The rim is not sharp, and the domed portion is narrow. At the same time there are considerable differences in the shapes and sizes of the fruits in these northern forms as the figures will show. Following are some specimens in the National Herbarium:—

Tingha, on granite, fruits nearly spherical, more or less glaucous, buds approaching normal (No. 962, R. H. Cambage).

Tingha, juvenile foliage narrower or more lanceolate than the type, but not invariably so. Stellate hairs, marginal characters as before. Intermediate foliage very broad and coarse (like the Stanthorpe, Q., specimen figured at fig. 18, pl. 39). Buds compressed (J. L. Boorman). Mr. Boorman and I have collected fruits at Tingha in heads, with valves as exsert as it is possible for them to be.

At Howell, near Tingha, Mr. Boorman and I collected a grandiflora form of this species, also specimens similar to the Tingha ones, and also fruits inclining to be pear-shaped, as referred to elsewhere when discussing this species.

Mount Seaview (J.H.M.). Bluff River, near Tenterfield; also Glen Innes (H. Deane) are obviously similar to var. brachycorys, but the rim is less rounded.

A second Bluff River specimen (H. Deane) is more glaucous and angular in all its parts, with larger fruits. I cannot distinguish it from Boorman's Tingha specimens, except, perhaps, in the more pronounced grooving of the rim.

Tent Hill, west of Deepwater (E. C. Andrews). In fruit only, which is depressed, tending to be hemispherical and the rim not sharp.

Emmaville. Buds very compressed (J. L. Boorman). From same locality (E. C. Andrews), but with shiny, scarcely angular buds, and angular, flat, broadrimmed fruits like var. (?) brachycorys. This angular rim appears to be less marked in fully ripe fruits. Stanthorpe, Queensland (F. M. Bailey).

The following specimens show some affinity to Muelleriana, and may be reported upon separately as a matter of convenience.

  • (a) Nundle, Liverpool Range (J. L. Boorman). Fruits pear-shaped, white-dotted, buds not angular, opercula conical. (See fig. 11, pl. 38.)
  • (b) Allied to the above, but buds and fruits smaller and paler, and the angular rim of the latter almost absent. Attunga, 12 miles N.W. of Tamworth, growing on hill of serpentine formation (R. H. Cambage). (See fig. 12, pl. 38.)
  • (c) “Red Stringybark,” Walcha District (A. R. Crawford), with fruits inclining to pear-shape. (See fig. 10, pl. 38.)

  •   ― 230 ―
  • (d) Hartley's Mill, Glen Innes (H. Deane). This is a very interesting specimen, of which leaves and fruits (not quite ripe) are alone available. It was referred doubtfully to E. eugenioides by Deane and Maiden, in Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 1896, 805. (See fig. 13, pl. 38.)

It is, I think, a transit form between E. macrorrhyncha and E. Muelleriana. It can be looked upon as an extreme form of the pear-shaped fruited macrorrhyncha specimens just referred to. The figure will explain it, and I will only add that I have not noticed the grooving of the rim, which is clear in this form, other than in E. macrorrhyncha.

  • (e) Warialda (J. L. Boorman), and the trees also examined by me. Apparently rare in the district. Occurs on the Inverell-road, near the dry creek with a bridge, under 2 miles from the township. The timber is warm brown. The suckers (some of them) nearly as narrow, perhaps quite as narrow, as ever seen in E. eugenioides. (See fig. 21, pl. 39.)

The fruits are quite small, and there is almost an entire absence of angularity of the rim. Occasionally angularity is observed. This form is obviously similar to (d), and it is an extreme form of E. macrorrhyncha.


1. E. capitellata, Sm.

In specific botanical affinity E. macrorrhyncha stands nearest to E. capitellata; leaves and fruits of both are the same; but the flowers of the latter are always sessile, or nearly so, and thus crowded into heads as the species-name signifies, besides being usually smaller; the lid of E. capitellata is hemispheric, without any prominent point, and shorter in proportion to the tube, the latter being also more angular, and downward less attenuated.—(Eucalyptographia, Mueller, under E. macrorrhyncha.)

That E. capitellata and E. macrorrhyncha possess points of resemblance is apparent to the most superficial observer. A comparison of the two may be roughly tabulated as follows:—E. capitellata—Operculum obtuse. Flowers and fruits sessile, or nearly so. Fruit expanded below the rim.

E. macrorrhyncha.—Operculum acuminate, or conical. Flowers and fruits strongly pedicellate; calyx border prominent.

But these characters are not absolute, and only belong to the types, considerable variation occurring in some specimens.

I cannot separate E. capitellata and E. macrorrhyncha on juvenile leaves, and agree with Mueller's dictum, “leaves and fruits of both are the same”; their limits are simply indefinable.

  ― 231 ―

2. E. Muelleriana, Howitt.

I have already spoken strongly as to the affinity of these two species. Contemplation of figures 10–13, plate 38, will illustrate the transit between them. This transit appears to be most marked in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland specimens. The colours of the timbers of the two species do not help one much in these transit forms. The colour of the timbers referred to is a warm brown, while that of E. macrorrhyncha in its typical form is rather darker, while that of E. Muelleriana is paler.

But as one gets away from the type localities of species, the colour of the timber varies within limits. Indeed timbers, like other products of plants, cannot always be placed in one species without a qualifying statement that it would be legitimate to look upon them as forms of another. I regret, as a systematist, to have to say this, but it is a necessary corollary of the grand law of variation amongst plants, often evident, but more frequently not so evident to the limited experience and knowledge of man.

3. E. diversifolia, Bonpl.

E. santalifolia, F.v.M. (E. diversifolia, Bonpl., J.H.M.), from the limestone ridges of Guichen Bay, and thence westward to Venus Bay beyond Spencer's Gulf, differs in smaller and less oblique leaves, with more concealed veins, and anthers rather cordate than kidney-shaped, but the fruits are again the same, unless the valves are smaller. Possibly it may prove a variety; it flowers already in a shrubby state. I have not seen the lid of its calyx.—(Eucalyptographia, Mueller, under E. macrorrhyncha.)

The affinity is, however, not very close, as references to the figures and text in Part VII will show.

21. XX. Eucalyptus eugenioides, Sieber.

Description  232 
Synonyms  233 
Range  235 
Affinities  239 

  ― 232 ―


E. eugenioides, Sieb.

SIEBER'S definition of E. eugenioides is as follows:—

E. operculo mucronulato, umbellis lateralibus racemosis, ramulis teretibus, foliis inæqualiter oblongolanceolatis (Sprengel's Curæ Posteriores, iv, 195), a description which would have rendered it impossible to state what species was meant, had not a specimen, named by Sieber, been in existence.

It is also described in Mueller's “Eucalyptographia.” The species may be described as follows:—

Vernacular Names.—It is usually known simply as “Stringybark.” It is often known as “White Stringybark” in this State and also in Victoria (A. W. Howitt), but the timber is often reddish, and hence it bears the name of “Red Stringybark” also. In those cases E. capitellata from the same district usually bears the name of “White Stringybark!”

Juvenile Foliage.—Specimens of the type (Sieber's No. 479) are just—only just—past the opposite stage. They are lanceolate, under ¾ inch wide at the outside, and up to 2½ inches long. Venation strongly marked. Leaves undulate and young shoots warty. (See fig. 2, pl. 40.)

Mueller has figurednote the juvenile foliage of the species in the Eucalyptographia, and I accept it as certainly belonging to the species, although the figure would have had enhanced value had the locality of the specimen been given.

Mature Leaves.—These are generally much thinner and more delicate in texture than those of E. capitellata and E. macrorrhyncha; the leaves are sometimes very shiny and much thicker than others. They are also of a richer green, more shapely, graceful and Eugenia-like, a circumstance which led to the adoption probably of the specific name.

Buds.—The buds are clustered and often very much crowded into heads, by which the inflorescence assumes a very marked character. They always have pointed opercula, but rarely angular, as in E. capitellata, the points being sometimes so marked as to approach those of E. macrorrhyncha, but they are then fuller on the top, and do not show such a prominent edge at the base of the operculum. Sometimes, e.g., Sydney to Blue Mountains, they are arranged in a stellate manner.

Fruits.—Sieber having distributed no fruits with his type, I attach the following description of fruits from trees in the Sydney district, which have juvenile and mature leaves, and flowers practically identical with the type:—

They are nearly hemispherical, with the valves slightly exsert; but nearly globular fruits with the valves sunk, and the orifice constricted, may be taken off the same tree. Occasionally the fruit is quite flat-topped. The rim is often red, as red as those of E. hæmastoma ever are. They are slightly pedicellate, often crowded into more or less globular heads, but rarely compressed like those of E. capitellata.

Timber.—When freshly cut usually dark brown, but drying to a pale warm brown and even whiter. In some districts, however, the timber is distinctly red, even redder than the local E. capitellata timber.

  ― 233 ―


  • 1. E. scabra, Dum-Cours.
  • 2. E. penicillata, Hort.
  • 3. E. acervula, Sieb.
  • 4. E. oblonga, DC.
  • 5. E. undulata (?), Tausch.
  • Variety nana, Deane and Maiden.
  • 6. E. oleifolia, A. Cunn. (probably).
  • 7. E. ligustrina, DC.
  • Note on E. salicifolia, Cav.

1. E. scabra, Dum-Cours.

Following is the original description:—

E. à feuilles rudes, E. scabra, Hort. Angl.-Cette espèce me paroît être une des plus belles de ce genre, du moins relativement à son feuillage. Ses feuilles sont ovales, très entières, terminées par une pointe particulière, relevées en-dessous de nervures parallèles qui s' arrondissent, en s' anastomosant à une ligne environ des bords, fermes, un peu rudes au toucher, d'un beau vert, longues de 9 centimètres (3 pouces et demi), larges de 5 cent. et demi (2 pouces). Lieu id. Toujours vert. Cult. Orangerie. Celle des autres espèces et des plantes de la Nouvelle-Hollande.

De toutes les espèces de ce genre, il n 'y a que celles qui sont nommées E. resinifera et obliqua qui aient encore fleuri en France et en Angleterre.—(Dum-Cours. Bot. Cult. ed. 2, vol. 7, p. 279, 280).

We then find Sieber's No. 479 (the type of E. eugenioides) placed under the same name, in the following words:—

E. scabra (Dum-Cours, bot. cult. 7, p. 280) operculo subconico cupulâ paulo breviore, pedunculis axillaribus angulato—compressis petiolo æqualibus aut longioribus, floribus capitatis, foliis lanceolatis basi inæqualibus ramorum sterilium crispis, fertilium planis, saepe novellis cum ramis velutinis. In Novâ-Hollandiâ. E. eugenioides, Sieb.! plant. exs. nov.-holl., n. 479—(DC. Prod. iii, 218.)

Specimens referred to, Sieber's No. 479, and named E. scabra, Dum-Cours, are precisely matched by many specimens in the National Herbarium, Sydney, e.g., Wyee (A. Murphy).

2. E. penicillata, Hort.

E. penicillata, hortul. Ramuli et folia pilos breves fasciculatim congestos gerunt, demum glabra evadunt, interdum glabra nascuntur. Petioli 4 lin. longi. Folia basi inæqualia ovali—aut oblongo—lanceolata acuminata. Pedunculi in specim. Sieberiano petiolo æquales 4–5 flori, in specim. culto Noissettiano petiolo duplo longiores 15–20 flori (given as a synonym of E. scabra in DC. Prod. iii, 218).

3. E. acervula, Sieb. (Sieb. plant. exs. nov.-holl., n. 469).

Operculo conico capsulæ longitudine, pedunculis lateralibus petiolo brevioribus pedicellisque ancipitibus, foliis ovato—lanceolatis basi hinc valde excisa obliquis apice acuminatis. In Nova—Hollandia. Folii petiolus 3–7 lin. longus, lamina 4–5 poll. longa pollicem lata. Pedunculi 4 lin. longi omnes in ramis infra folio orti. Umbellæ 5–10 floræ. Florum alabastra 3 lin. longa.—(DC. Prod. iii, 217.)

All the specimens of Sieber's No. 469 that I have seen are in mature foliage and bud. I cannot separate them from Sieber's No. 479; in fact, they might have been taken from the same tree.

“31. Eucalyptus acervula, Sieb.—DC. l.c. 217, n. 10, Mém. Myrtac. Folia in supp. paullo latiora. Swampy plains towards the Plenty-range (F. Müller)” (Miquel in Ned. Kruidk. Arch. iv, 137, 1856). I have not seen this Victorian specimen.

  ― 234 ―

4. E. oblonga, DC.

Following is the original description:—

E. oblonga, operculo conico cupulæ longitudine, pedunculis lateralibus et axillaribus petioli longitudine compressis, umbellis 8–12 floris, foliis oblongis basi inæqualibus attenuatis apice mucronatis coriaceis aveniis.

In Novâ-Hollandiâ. Sieb.! plant exs. nov.-holl. n. 583. Alabastra oblonga utrinque attenuata ad apicem pedunculi subsessilia et eo paulo breviora. Folia 3–4 poll. longa, 9 lin. lata.—(DC. Prod. iii, 217.)

This is in leaf and young bud only. Some of the leaves are oblong; they are mucronate, shiny, very coriaceous, so that the venation cannot readily be seen. The buds are shiny, operculum pointed, calyx tapering into the short pedicel, making the bud symmetrical and of the shape of a “tip-cat.” I refer it, without doubt, to a form of E. eugenioides common on the Blue Mountains. I match it absolutely with specimens from Lawson (J. H. Camfield); Jenolan Caves (W. F. Blakely); and Mudgee (C. Marriott).

5. E. undulata, Herb. Vindob. (? Tausch., but label partly defaced) is a seedling or sucker branch of E. eugenioides, Sieb.

Var. nana, Deane and Maiden.

Figured and described in Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 1898, p. 799.

This is a shrub of 5 or 6 feet, forming a dense shrubby growth at Wentworth Falls, Blue Mountains, N.S.W. It has the stellate hairs (juvenile foliage) of the rest of the Stringybarks.

6. E. oleifolia, A. Cunn.

In his MSS. Journal I find the following entries:—

  • (a) At page 6: “Blackheath, 5th October, 1822, operculo hemispherico foliis (parvis) ellipticis ovali-lanceolatisve mucronatis acutiplanis, umbellis axillaribus pedicellatis 9–10 floris. A low shrub 2 feet high.”
  • (b) “A low shrub 1–2 feet high, verge of Regent's Glen.” This is probably also E. eugenioides, var. nana.

Mr. R. H. Cambage has also collected it on a sandstone plateau about 1,700 feet high at West Dapto. His note is: “Dwarf Stringybark, growing somewhat as a Mallee. Height, 2 feet 9 inches.”

7. E. ligustrina, DC.

Operculo hemisphærico mucronato cupulâ breviore, pedunculis axillaribus compressis petioli longitudine, floribus 6–8 sub-capitatis, foliis lineari-lanceolatis basi valde inæqualibus attenuatis apice acuminatis. In Novâ-Hollandiâ. Sieb. (?) plant. exs. nov.-holl. n. 617. Folia 2 poll. longa 4–5 lin. lata. Petioli et pedunculi 3–4 lin. longi. An E. salicifolia, Cav. Ic. 4 n. 376 (?).—(DC. Prod. iii, 219.)

All the specimens of Sieber's No. 617 that I have seen are in bud only, but they precisely match E. eugenioides, var. nana.

Note on E. salicifolia, Cav.

A specimen of Sieber's No. 617 in Herb. Vindob. (ex. Coll. Reichenbach, fil.) in old handwriting bears the label, “E. ligustrina, DC. Prod. iii, p. 219, n. 24. E. salicifolia, Cav. ic. iv, p. 24, No. 376!” with the words, “Spont. N. Holl. Sieb. 617,” in a later handwriting. It is E. eugenioides, Sieb., var. nana.

  ― 235 ―

At p. 152, Part VI, of this work this species is referred to E. amygdalina, and the determination of Sieber's No. 617 as E. salicifolia is, I believe, wrong. I give the original description of E. salicifolia, as Cavanilles' work is not in New South Wales:—

“376. Eucalyptus foliis lanceolatis, nervo dorsali inæqualiter partis, altera parte versus basim breviore.

“Haec species a reliquis distinguitur foliis altera parte versus basim breviori ut in Begonia et aliis plantis: nervuli sunt etiam adscendentes: umbellæ 7–10 floræ, axillares.”—(Cav. Icones, iv, p. 24.)

See also Metrosideros salicifolia (Gaertn. Sem. i. p. 171, t. 34; Lamarck Illustr. t. 421, f. 4). Specimens (so named) have also been recorded from “Bay of Islets, Cape Grafton, Endeavour's River, Point Lookout, Possession Island,” as collected by Sir Joseph Banks, but I have not seen them. For geographical reasons they could not be E. amygdalina, and it is very improbable that they are E. eugenioides. See also Dryander's “Chloris” (Ann. Bot. ii, 524, 1806).


IT appears to be confined to eastern Victoria, New South Wales, from south to north, on the Dividing Range and its spurs, and east of them, and to southern Queensland.


The Victorian forms (often referred to in the writings of Victorian botanists as E. piperita), as a rule have fruits which are more or less pilular, i.e., with sunk valves, thus approaching E. piperita, but the fruits appear to be never urceolate, as in that species.

Some of them, e.g., Eureka Hill, Tinker Creek, Gippsland; Drouin West; also Osler's Creek (A. W. Howitt), have juvenile leaves which vary from narrow to broadish.

Mr. (now Dr.) A. W. Howitt wrote to me, “The White Stringybark forms forests in Gippsland, for instance at Toongabbie, between Stratford and Bairnsdale, Bairnsdale and Buchan at the Lakes Entrance, in Croajingolong. It also occurs throughout the mountainous districts. It grows to a good size, is free from gumveins, and is a useful timber. Its western limits are probably Traralgon and Woodside.”

Following are Victorian specimens in the National Herbarium, Sydney, collected by Dr. Howitt.

Macalister River.—Fruits in heads, orifice small; source of Wild Horse Creek, 3,000 ft.; Drouin West; Stockyard (the river banks); Agnes Bridge, very long opercula; “Yellow Stringybark,” Stony Creek, Nicholson River, Bairnsdale; the suckers intermediate in character.

“A Stringybark growing in the clayey flats (post-Pliocene?) at Toongabbie, near the foot of the hills. From a moderately large tree, say 100 ft. ‘Yangoura’ of the blacks” (A. W. Howitt).

A specimen from Blackburn, near Melbourne (C. Walter) has the valves of the fruits slightly exsert.

  ― 236 ―


Southern Localities.—Twofold Bay (J.H.M.), Wyndham and Bembooka (A. W. Howitt); Conjola, near Milton, with very long opercula (W. Heron); south of Nowra, from Jervis Bay (J.H.M.); Shoalhaven River, also Diggers' Creek (W. Forsyth and A. A. Hamilton), with filiform pedicels; Kangaloon (J. L. Bruce); Barber's Creek (H. J. Rumsey); Wingello (J. L. Boorman), medium trees, detected by short leaves and absence of glaucous tint. “Red Stringybark,” in contradistinction to “White Stringybark” (E. capitellata), a reversal of this nomenclature being more common in other parts of New South Wales. A second collector (A. Murphy) confirms Mr. Boorman's report of the local nomenclature.

Berrima (see notes under E. capitellata).

The Peaks, Burragorang (R. H. Cambage), Kangaroo Valley and Bowral to Bullio (J.H.M. and R. H. Cambage). These specimens are indistinguishable from Sieber's type of E. acervula, No. 469, but are eugenioides, showing transit to one of the forms included by Mr. Baker in his Wilkinsoniana.

Hilltop, with specially marked white-dotted fruits and elongated opercula (J.H.M.).

Sydney district, common on the Wianamatta shale, but also found on sandstone. Following are some Sydney district localities:—Homebush (J.H.M.); Concord Park (R. H. Cambage); Bankstown and Cabramatta (J. L. Boorman); Hurstville (R. H. Cambage), the valves sunk; La Perouse (W. W. Froggatt); Peat's Road (H. Deane); Newport (R. H. Cambage).

Some trees found by J. J. Fletcher at Gladesville, photographed by R. H. Cambage, and examined by all three of us, have a flaky bark (somewhat like E. resinifera), than that of a true Stringybark; probably showing hybridism.

Western Localities.—To the foot of the Blue Mountains from Sydney, it is rather common. It is the commonest Stringybark on the Blue Mountains, occurring all over the range, and at all heights. Compared with the other rather common Blue Mountain Stringybark (E. capitellata), the timber is redder (!) The juvenile foliage is narrower, and not glaucous, like that of E. capitellata. The fruits of E. eugenioides on the Blue Mountains are not often exsert; instances to the contrary are Springwood (H. Deane); Mount Wilson (Jesse Gregson), with inner bark very yellow.

Jenolan Caves (W. F. Blakely). Collector's note:—“The bark of these trees is of a light reddish colour on the inside; the outside is of a dirty grey colour, or weather-beaten, and is very ridgy; the ridges run out to nothing as they approach the top of the tree. The bark is of the same colour from the bottom to the topmost branch, and is of a rather rough nature.”

At Capertee (J. L. Boorman) and Mudgee (Dist. Forester C. Marriott) it is known as “White Stringybark.”

  ― 237 ―

E. eugenioides does not appear to go further west than Jenolan Caves and Mudgee.

“Bastard Stringybark” (Penrith: J. L. Boorman, January, 1900). I desire to invite attention to an interesting form of this species. The fruits are smaller than is usual and nearly globular. They are on nearly filiform pedicels of about 2 lines; the common peduncle is twice that length, and more. The bark is harder and denser (less stringy) than those of the normal species—more “bark bound”; a character also noted under E. capitellata. Perhaps hybridism is indicated in this case. The plant is indubitably E. eugenioides, though, from examination of the fruits alone, it might reasonably be supposed to be E. hæmastoma, var. micrantha.

Northern Localities.—Most of the northern specimens have the rims red and prominent, and the valves slightly exsert.

“Good timber, cut for sleepers. Yellow inner bark, between the rough and the inner bark; the fibrous portion very tough.” Wyee (A Murphy). The fruits are slightly constricted, and in heads; the filaments turn brownish-red on drying.

Stringybark, free splitting; bark between sap and outside yellow. St. Alban's district, Hawkesbury River (A. Murphy). Transit to E. Muelleriana.

Wallsend (W. W. Froggatt).—Fruits rather small, rim red and conspicuous, valves slightly exsert, leaves broadish (?); Booral (A. Rudder, No. 4); Wallsend (J. L. Boorman); Booral (A. Rudder, A. 29).

“Stringybark, height about 60 ft., diam. 18 in., mould over shale,” near Underbank, Upper Williams River (A. Rudder, G. 10).

Pokolbin, No. 1,486, R. H. Cambage. Near to E. Wilkinsoniana, R. T. Baker.

Stewart's Brook.—Rim of fruit red and pronounced (J.H.M.); Moggrani Mountain, Gloucester (J.H.M.); Upper Hastings River; cutting near Yeldham's. Fruits slightly exsert and rim pronounced (J.H.M.); Macleay River (Forester W. Macdonald).

Murrurundi (J.H.M. and J. L. Boorman). Valves slightly exsert, rim broadish, hemispherical, slightly depressed, with short filiform pedicels, connecting with the “Bastard Stringybark” of Penrith.

Collaroy (J.H.M. and J. L. Boorman), showing white dots and a slight ribbing of the fruits.

Near Cemetery, Tingha (R. H. Cambage); with fruits a little more subcylindrical and perhaps a little more domed than the type. Specimens from the same locality with nearly pilular fruits and very narrow juvenile foliage.

Near 11-mile post, Inverell to Tingha (R. H. Cambage). Form with even narrower leaves than the type.

  ― 238 ―

Tingha to Guyra, 19 miles from the latter place (J.H.M. and J.L. Boorman). Juvenile leaves intermediate. Mature leaves broadish. Fruits (from same tree) flat-rimmed, domed; valves exsert and sunk; hemispherical and inclined to be sub-cylindrical.

I place this specimen under E. eugenioides, and it certainly seems to form a connecting link between the Tingha specimens and the supposed hybrid which follows.

Between Tingha and Guyra, 19 miles from the latter (J. L. Boorman). “Stringybark,” medium-sized trees growing in swampy ground in company with that of E. stellulata and E. nova-anglica. An interesting form; leaves broad, thickish. None of the fruits with exserted valves, which is unusual in northern specimens. I am of opinion that here we have a hybrid between E. eugenioides and E. stellulata.

Fruits in heads, slightly constricted, valves sunk. Tent Hill (E. C. Andrews).

Small fruits in heads, valves not exsert, Styx River (A. W. Howitt). I have other specimens from the same locality showing close affinity to E. Muelleriana.

Walcha (J. F. Campbell). Fruits rather exsert, and rim inclined to be domed. Shows affinity to E. macrorrhyncha. Ascending New England from Port Macquarie, this species was first observed about Yarrowitch. Thence it was not uncommon in the Tia district, where it is known as “Red Stringybark,” and used for timbering the mines at Tia, and also locally for flooring-boards. This species shows a double operculum (J.H.M.).

Tenterfield to Sandy Flat (J.H.M.)—Fruits very similar to those of Sydney, e.g., Concord Park (believed to be typical), hemispherical, and somewhat exserted valves. Buds very compressed, almost like capitellata. I figured this (Plate 4, Part I) as E. Muelleriana, and I now put it under E. eugenioides with doubt. It certainly is a transit form.

Drake to Richmond River (A. Hagman); Drake (E. C. Andrews), with rim of fruit rather sharp and valves exsert (transit to E. Muelleriana).

Foot of Mt. Lindsay (W. Forsyth); Moonambah, Richmond River (W. Baeuerlen); valves slightly exsert.


Nerang, near Tweed Heads (F. M. Bailey). Small fruits with sharp rim, valves rather prominent.

“Stringybark.” Yellow inner bark. See fig. 16, pl. 38, Stanthorpe (J. L. Boorman). A eugenioides-Muelleriana form.

“Yellow Stringybark,” Landsborough, North Coast Railway (P. MacMahon). A pale-coloured timber, with stains of bright yellow running through it.

  ― 239 ―


1. E. capitellata, Sm.

There is no sharp line of demarcation between E. eugenioides and E. capitellata, intermediate forms occurring between them in regard to buds, fruit, leaves, and even timber.

Some fruits show a tendency to E. capitellata in having fruits larger and more “squatty” or compressed than those of E. eugenioides. But the valves of the fruits are not so exserted, nor are the buds so flat and angular as those of E. capitellata usually are. The buds are, in fact, those of E. eugenioides.

E. eugenioides displays a tendency to form globular masses of closely-packed sessile fruits, after the manner of E. capitellata. These globular masses present such a different appearance to the ordinary form of E. eugenioides that they may, at first sight, be reasonably supposed to form a variety, but we have many gradations between them and the ordinary form.

The state of being capitate is by no means confined to E. capitellata, and seems to me induced by exuberance of floriferousness. For example, at Newport, near Sydney, where E. eugenioides was flowering as freely as I have ever seen it, and covered with honey-seeking insects, on the same twig we find dense heads of fruits and more open heads with distinctly pedicellate fruits. There we have also the roughened rim and the white-dotted fruits.

To recapitulate somewhat, we have:—

E. eugenioides fruits may be sessile; they may be compressed; they may precisely resemble those of E. capitellata in shape, as regards the sunk valved forms. The valves are rarely, if ever, so exsert as in some forms of capitellata.

In E. eugenioides the buds are smaller; occasionally slightly angled, but never to the extent that those of capitellata are (with the possible exceptions referred to, e.g., young buds of Berrima and Wingello, pp. 215, 216).

Sometimes they, like the leaves, are shining like those of E. capitellata often are.

The juvenile leaves may be broadish as in Figure v in Howitt, Trans. Roy. Soc. Vict., 1890–1, vol. 2, pl. 14, fig. 4. With these I place specimens collected in Gippsland (Toongabbie, Bruthen, Eureka Hill, Tinker Creek), by A. W. Howitt. A figure of one of Mr. Howitt's natural seedlings has just been alluded to, and fig. 1 of the same plate, considered by Mr. Howitt to be E. piperita, is the same form.

Such specimens as these (and other instances have been referred to by me) show that there are intermediate stages between E. eugenioides and E. capitellata, and that the evidence of seedlings, at one time believed to be infallible, breaks down. At the same time, juvenile foliage (whether of seedlings or suckers) is most valuable. Yet here we have additional evidence pointing to the conclusion that every character in Eucalyptus is unstable.

  ― 240 ―

2. E. macrorrhyncha, F.v.M. (See E. macrorrhyncha.)

3. E. Muelleriana, Howitt. (See E. Muelleriana.)

4. E. piperita, Sm.

In the “Flora Australiensis” E. eugenioides is reduced to a variety of E. piperita, but it has since been shown to be an undoubtedly good species, its affinities being more with E. capitellata than with E. piperita. From the latter it is easily distinguished in the living state by the strong fibrous character of the bark which extends to the small branches, the other species having a bark of the texture of E. amygdalina, and being only half-barked in general like E. pilularis. The fruits of E. piperita are more contracted at the top with a thin rim, whereas those of E. eugenioides have a well-marked rim, sometimes flat, but generally raised. The juvenile foliage and timber are also very different.

Following are the reports on the Stringybark oils dealt with in this Part, taken from Messrs. Baker and Smith's “Research on the Eucalypts.” Each form was only subjected to one or at most two distillation :—

Species.  Whence obtained.  Specific Gravity at 15° C.  Specific Rotation [a] D   Saponification Number.  Solubility in Alcohol.  Constituents found. 
capitellata, Sm. …  Canterbury, Sydney, N.S.W.  0·9175  +4·8°  4·27  1 vol. 80%  Eucalyptol, pinene, phellandrene,note sesquiterpene. 
Muelleriana, Howitt (as E. lævopinea, R. T. Baker).  Rylstone, N.S.W.  0·8755  -46·74° (first fraction).  7·0  Insoluble  Pinene (lævo-rotatory). 
Do. (as E.dextropinea, R. T. Baker).  Barber's Creek and Currawang Creek, N.S.W.  0·8758 to 0·8778  +38·18° to +39·59°  22·9  Insoluble  Pinene, esters. 
Wilkinsoniana, R. T. Baker.  Barber's Creek, N.S.W.  0·8944  -23·9°  5·0  Insoluble  Pinene (lævo-rotatory), eucalyptol. 
nigra, R. T. Baker…  Woodburn, N.S.W.  0·8744  -38·88°  7·2  Insoluble  Phellandrene,note eucalyptol. 
macrorrhyncha, F.v.M.  Rylstone district, N.S.W.  0·9290  -1·11° (first fraction).  8·36  1¾ vols. 70%  Eucalyptol, phellandrene,note eudesmol, pinene. 
eugenioides, Sieb. …  Canterbury, Sydney, N.S.W.  0·9122 to 0·9132  +3·74° to +5·246°  6·89  1 vol. 80%, but solubility increases on keeping.  Pinene, eucalyptol, sesquiterpene. 

On these figures, E. capitellata and E. eugenioides are very closely related. I invite attention to the relationships of the other species on the figures given; they can be discussed in a chemical or pharmaceutical journal.

22. XXI. Eucalyptus marginata, Smith.

Synonyms  241 

  ― 241 ―


E. marginata, Sm.

Trans. Linn. Soc. vi, 302 (1802). B.Fl. iii, 209.

FIGURED and described in “Eucalyptographia.” See also Diels and Pritzel, Engler's Jahrb., 1904, p. 438.

A full account of its economic uses will be found in Maiden's “Useful Native Plants of Australia” (1889).

Following is the original description:—

Marginata, operculo conico magnitudine calycis, umbellis lateralibus, foliis ovatis margine incrassatis. E. marginata, Donn. Herb. Cant. ed. 2. 101 (?)

Mr. Aiton favoured me with specimens of this plant three years ago from Kew Gardens. The seeds were brought from Port Jackson. Its leaves agree very much in form with those of E. robusta (next to which it ought to be placed), but the foot-stalks are shorter, veins more prominent, and the margin more thickened, somewhat cartilaginous, and reddish. The umbels are solitary, axillary, and simple. Flowers scarcely one-third the size of the robusta, and their covers are neither broader than the calyx, nor longer; neither are they contracted in the middle. The flowers much resemble those of my E. pilularis, but the leaves are totally different.

Aiton, Hortus Kewensis, iii, 192, calls it “Thick-edged Eucalyptus,” and stated that it was introduced to Kew, in 1794, by seeds obtained from Archibald Menzies, Esq.

Menzies was with Captain Vancouver, who visited South-western Australia, and discovered King George's Sound in 1791. No other portion of Australia was visited by the expedition, and Smith's statement that the seeds came from Port Jackson is probably a mere slip of the pen or a misunderstanding of what Aiton told him. The matter is also discussed by Mueller (Eucalyptographia) under E. marginata, and there is no doubt that E. marginata, Sm., is the West Australian Jarrah.


1. E. pedicellata, R.Br. MSS. or “Archd. Menzies”—perhaps as collector only—in Herb. Brit. Museum.

2. E. floribunda, Hügel, Enum. Pl. Hügel, p. 49 (1837).

Type from “Swan River.”

3. E. hypoleuca, Schauer in Lehmann's Pl. Preiss. No. 131 (1844). Preiss. No. 226.

The type came from Wuljenup, district of Plantagenet.

  ― 242 ―

4. E. Mahogani, F.v.M. Fragm. ii, 41 (1860).

Kalgan River, Oldfield. Leaves rather thick.

I have examined types of all of the above.

Drummond's 85 (5th Coll. ?) has rather broad leaves and is in flower only.

Drummond's 185 (5th) “Swan River to Cape Riche” has small leaves, shiny and coriaceous.

The original pronunciation of the well-known name “Jarrah” is “Yarrah.”

Mueller quotes Augustus Gregory as giving “Jerrile” as the aboriginal name; Dr. A. Morrison gives another, viz., “Maalock.” Two other species have been sent to me from Western Australia under the latter name.

The thickened margin of the leaf affords a useful diagnostic character, but it is not an infallible guide.

The seedling leaves are remarkable and have not been previously described. Mr. A. G. Hamilton collected the specimen figured (fig. 1, pl. 40) at Woodlupin Creek, W.A.

The cotyledon leaves are nearly reniform, and when dried are 1½ inch in greatest width; width of the lamina from the attachment of the petiole continued until the margin of the lamina is reached is 1 inch; length of petiole 7/8 inch. The cotyledon-leaves and intermediate leaves are glandular—hairy with reddish hairs, lanceolate, and the base of the lamina comes below the point of attachment of the petiole to the lamina.

One of the best known of Australian timber-trees, partly because it is more gregarious than those of most other species of the Australian States. It is a very valuable asset of the Western State, and one of which she can reasonably be very proud.

The bark is rough, not a true Stringybark, but while fibrous it is flaky, furrowed, and somewhat dense in texture.

It is a species with a wide range in Western Australia, and I have nothing to add to the range indicated in “Eucalyptographia.”

23. XXII. Eucalyptus buprestium, F. v. Mueller.

Description  243 

  ― 243 ―


E. buprestium, F.v.M.

Fragm. iii, 57.

DESCRIBED in B.Fl. iii, 205, and described and figured in “Eucalyptographia.” See also a note by Diels and Pritzel, Engler's Jahrb. 1904, p. 437.

A Western Australian shrub of 8 or 10 feet, named from specimens originally collected by G. Maxwell, south of Kojoneerup, near Helen's Peak and near Salt River and Pallinup River. It is also Drummond's 3rd Coll. Suppl. No. 12.

It has been collected at Stirling's Range by several collectors.

Mueller gives “near Arrowsmith River,” so that we have for its habitat the coastal belt from, say, Beaufort Inlet on the south, to the Arrowsmith River on the west coast.

As regards buds, the colour (warm brown) and the shape remind one a good deal of those of E. Baileyana, F.v.M.

The leaves are not dissimilar to those of the smaller ones of those of E. Todtiana, F.v.M., while some of the fruits of the two species are not dissimilar in size and shape, although those of E. Todtiana have usually broader rims.

E. buprestium is a species of which but few field-notes are available. When it has been examined more carefully and juvenile leaves are seen, we shall be able to speak more definitely of its affinities.

24. XXIII. Eucalyptus sepuleralis, F. v. Mueller.

The limitations of morphology, and record of oil constituents considered in regard to the determination of species of Eucalyptus  244 
Explanation of plates  251 

  ― 244 ―


E. sepulcralis, F.v.M.

In Dec. viii “Eucalyptographia” (1882).

I HAVE no specimens other than a portion of the type, and have nothing to add to the description as given in “Eucalyptographia.”

But I would point out that the precise position of this species is still unknown, and will remain so until seedlings are raised. I trust, therefore; that seeds will soon be again available.

Mueller places it next to E. buprestium while drawing attention to the anthers, which are indeed one of the connecting links between the Renantheræ and the Parallelantheræ. I would suggest that the true affinity may be with E. erythronema, Turcz., from which it is sharply separated by the fruits; but leaves, anthers, and even buds show resemblance.

Work to show the affinities of the species of this extensive and perplexing genus is much desired. At present many of the species have been described without due reference (often data were not available) to their congeners.

The limitations of Morphology and record of Oil-constituents considered in regard to the determination of species of Eucalyptus.

I THINK I have fairly shown that the present group of species, the Stringybarks, exhibits variation in a most marked degree. It is, therefore, opportune to againnote deal with the subject of variation in the genus. Darwin has uttered the dictum that species of the larger genera in any country vary more than the species of the smaller genera.note Experience with the large genus Eucalyptus certainly bears out the truth of this dictum. Hooker's papernote may be profitably studied in this connection.

Variation can be studied from three standpoints:

  • 1, Selection;
  • 2, Hybridisation, or crossing;
  • 3, Mutation;

and all of them, in my view, are operative in the genus Eucalyptus, accounting in varying degree for the innumerable variations so far observed.

  ― 245 ―

Selection.—This is Darwin's expression for what Herbert Spencer has termed the “survival of the fittest.” This selection can be aided by man, but most of the variations already noted in the genus refer to naturally-grown forms.

Darwin's view was that of all the causes which induce variability, excess of food is probably the most powerful.note

Hybridisation is a term implying the breeding together of members of different species. The word is derived from the Latin for a mongrel. In other words, two different species must be concerned. The word “crossing” is sometimes taken to imply “the mingling of strains within a species”; but, in view of the unequal relations of varieties and species as often defined, it seems convenient to take hybridisation and crossing together, at all events for our present purpose.

I have dealt with hybridisation as regards Eucalyptus in various publications,note and need not repeat the facts and inferences at this place.

Mutation or Saltation is the term applied to sudden changes of characters for which no immediate cause is apparent. The phenomena were first largely investigated and brought under notice by Hugo de Vries, of Amsterdam.

The resultant plants or sports are not hybrids, and are produced as the effect of various circumstances which disturb the conditions of a plant. The tendency to alteration is latent in the plant, and stimuli not always clear to us are sufficient to bring out these mutation-forms.

When we speak of the natural or innate tendency of a plant to differ from the remainder of the plants of similar origin,note we often refer to mutation-forms.

Variation in plants induced by environment.

Let me quote some references by eminent botanists to this subject:—

1. Pseudo-species of Botanists.—Dr. D. Mariano de la Paz Graells … adds the following remarks upon some of the many so-called species, which he shows are only modifications due to environment. Thus, of Pyrethrum sulphureum and Dianthus brachyanthus, he writes:—

The polymorphism which these plants acquire at different elevations has given rise to the formation of distinct species, i.e., admitted as such by botanists of note. Studying the original division of P. pulverulentum, of Lagasca, and of P. sulphureum, of Boissier and Renter, Willkom has united them into one single species, which he has called in his Prodromus Flora Hispanica, P. Hispanicum. In this, he recognises two well-defined groups, the “pinnatifid” and “laciniate” types, placing in the first group P. pulverulentum of Lagasca, and the P. radicans of Cavanilles; and in the second, P. sulphureum, Boiss. et Rent., which Asio had named Chrysanthemum Aragonense, and C. Bocconi or P. Bocconi, Wal. P. versicolor, Willkom; which turns out to be the P. sulphureum, var. P. alpinum, Boiss. et Rent.

  ― 246 ―

The same thing has happened with Dianthus brachyanthus, Boiss. et Rent., which Xatar and Maill took to be D. attenuatus, Benth., in the Pyrenees, and Koch for D. virgineus; such mistakes being due to the modifications produced by varying elevations. In some cases the very same organs become atrophied or disappear, while in others they become much more developed than usual.note

2. The especially characteristic features of alpine plants, as compared with similar or allied plants growing at lower levels, are a dwarfing in size and compactness of growth, sometimes giving rise to a moss-like appearance; a more intense green colour in the leaves, and greater brilliancy and size in the flowers; an increased hairiness of the leaves, and occasionally a certain degree of fleshiness of the tissues.note Now, by growing lowland plants at high altitudes, Bonnier,note Flahault,note and others have shown that such characters as these may be rapidly acquired. For instance, Bonnier made observations on Teucrium Scorodonia for no less than eight years, and he found that this plant, when sown at a high situation in the Pyrenees, produced very short aërial stems, with more hairy and darker green leaves, and more compact inflorescence. On the other hand, seeds gathered from plants growing at high altitudes, and sown in Paris, after three years produced elongated stems, with less hairy and brighter green leaves, or plants very similar to those from seeds obtained in the neighbourhood of Paris.note

3. Existing floras exhibit only one moment in the history of the earth's vegetation. A transformation which is sometimes rapid, sometimes slow, but always continuous, is wrought by the reciprocal action of the innate variability of plants, and of the variability of the external factors.note

And again:—

4. There are, further, some species—and this fact is as important to the systematist as to the physiologist—which adapt themselves to the varying conditions of humidity so completely that their extreme forms appear to belong to different species, but these by a change in the supply of moisture may pass over into one another.note

5. Every plant .… occupies its place in the order of nature by the action of two forces—the inherent constitutional life-force with all its acquired habits, the sum of which is heredity; and the numerous complicated external forces or environment. To guide the interaction of these two forces .… is, and must be, the sole object of the breeder, whether of plants or animals.note

6. The combination and interaction of these innumerable forces embraced in heredity and environment, have given us all our bewildering species and varieties, none of which ever did or ever will remain constant.note

7. Bringing a species into a new environment disturbs its fixity. Rich soil especially gives rise to variations in growth which seems to be new, and by repetition become inherently fixed. Sometimes ancestral states are brought about by good soil; sometimes (perhaps oftener), also by starvation; new variations oftenest by rich soil and general prosperity.note

Variation is going on now.

Authors sometimes argue in a circle when they state that important organs never vary; for these same authors practically rank that character as important (as some few naturalists have honestly confessed) which does not vary; and, under this point of view, no instance of an important part varying will ever be found; but under any other point of view many instances assuredly can be given.note

And again:—

I will add another remark: Naturalists continually assert that no important organ varies; but in saying this they unconsciously argue in a vicious circle; for if an organ, let it be what it may, is highly variable, it is regarded as unimportant, and under a systematic point of view this is quite correct. But as long as constancy is thus taken as a criterion of importance, it will, indeed, be long before an important organ can be shown to be inconstant.note

  ― 247 ―

Reputed constancy of characters in Eucalyptus.

The following statements have been made:—

1. “Comparative constancy of specific characters of Eucalyptus species … but it is individual species that we maintain show a comparative constancy of specific characters throughout their known geographical distribution.” (Messrs. Baker and Smith.)

And again:—

2. “The reputed or supposed great variation of individual Eucalyptus species has probably arisen by the attempts of botanists to found species on morphological characters alone.” (The italics are not mine.)

Two points are involved in this statement:

  • (a) The reputed invariability (or in other words, the “comparative constancy”) of species of Eucalyptus;
  • (b) The founding of species on morphological characters alone.

Real genetic relationships take cognisance of all the characters.

Some of the items in regard to which I always endeavour to obtain information as regards any particular species of Eucalyptus are as follows:—

Shape of juvenile leaves; venation and mature leaves; principal constituents of oil; anthers; fruit; bark; timber; kino; habit; any other character.

I attach great importance to studying the trees in the field. In this way habitat, habit, size, bark, timber, can best be studied.

In these researches I may be pardoned for saying that I have travelled more or less in every. State of the Commonwealth, covering thousands of miles on foot in pursuit of this study alone, in contradistinction to mere herbarium work.

This is one way of learning what are “natural” species, and affinities and dissimilarities can be largely learned in this way. I have, indeed, inaugurated on a comprehensive scale the study of genetic relationships in Eucalypts, and have always deprecated the study of this genus from herbarium specimens or “morphological characters alone.”

The extracts from the writings of eminent botanists are pertinent in this connection:—

1. It is clear that at present the question (relation of plants to one another) is very far from settled; indeed, hardly more than a beginning has been made in the establishment of a system which can be said to represent real genetic relationships.note

2. Rather there is an increasing tendency to the view that the solution of plant-affinities, as Linnæus long ago affirmed, must be sought in a comparative study of all the characters.note

3. The idea that morphology has nothing to do with the function of organs has been acquired entirely because the fact has been overlooked that the transformations seen in organs are conditioned by a change of function. Their functions, therefore, have been treated as subordinate in determining the characters of organs; external relations alone have been taken as the chief points for consideration. But the relationships of mere form are by no means the permanent ones in ‘the tide of phenomena.’ They also change. The determination of this change, that is to say, of the alterations which have taken place, and are believed to take place in the formation of organs of a natural group, is one of the weightiest tasks of organography. If we separate function from form we are at once led into altogether unfruitful speculations.note

  ― 248 ―

I repudiate any suggestion that the taxonomic evidence afforded by the morphology of plants can be intelligently studied except in connection with such physiological evidence as may be available.

At the same time, the classifactory characters must be mainly morphological.

“But in his clear definition of the principles which must guide the worker who is seeking a true natural system, De Candolle did work of far greater value. He pointed out that characters which are of the utmost importance to the life-functions of the plant are useless from a systematic point of view. In a word, it is to morphology, and not to physiology, that we must look for aid in establishing relationships.”note

Oil an accessory or adaptive character.

The essential oils are accessory substances, and, may I repeat it, variable like everything else connected with Eucalyptus.

1. The chemical qualities, odours, and tissues of plants are often modified by a change which seems to us slight. The Hemlock is said not to yield conicine in Scotland. The root of the Aconitum napellus becomes innocuous in frigid climates. The medicinal properties of the Digitalis are easily affected by culture. The Rhubarb flourishes in England, but does not produce the medicinal substance which makes the plant so valuable in Chinese Tartary. As the Pistacia lentiscus grows abundantly in the south of France, the climate must suit it, but it yields no mastic. The Laurus sassafras in Europe loses the odour proper to it in North America. Many similar facts could be given, and they are remarkable because it might have been thought that definite chemical compounds would have been little liable to change either in quality or quantity.note

2. Just as the presence and quantity of opium, hasheesh, aconitine, &c., secreted by plants, vary greatly with the climate, so it is reasonable, in the absence of strict investigations, to assume that these oils are in an excess through the intense heat, and other conditions of the climate of deserts.note

3. Interesting as is this correlation of morphology and constituents in the Eucalyptus species, it may be pointed out that a knowledge of the constituents of a plant is never likely to play such an important part in systematic botany as the authors appear to believe, since there are already known numerous instances of plants which, grown under different climatic conditions, show no morphological change, yet exhibit remarkable variation in constituents, and, on the other hand, plants which are not at all closely related frequently contain the same colouring matters, alkaloids, etc., so that the necessary specific constancy of constituents, which alone would make such criteria useful, is wanting. The authors lay stress on observations made by them as to the absence of marked variation in the composition of oils yielded by the same Eucalyptus species grown in different districts of Australia; but the evidence of constancy in this respect would be greatly strengthened if it could be shown to hold for the same species outside Australia. For an investigation of its kind ample material now exists in foreign plantations.note

The cases of the Peppermint and Lavender, both plants yielding essential oils, are notorious. Science has not yet established a connection between morphological characters and oil-yields in these cases.

It is only necessary to consult any good work on essential oils, say Die ætherischen Oele, E. Gildemeister and Fr. Hoffmann (Julius Springer, Berlin), of which the authorised translation is The Volatile Oils, by Edward Kremers (Pharm. Review Co., Milwaukee, U.S.A.), and especially Schimmel's Semi-annual Reports

  ― 249 ―
(Berichte) to be satisfied that the chemical composition and physical properties of essential oils of ascertained botanical origin often vary considerably for the same species.

Oil determinations are usually difficult to apply for purposes of diagnosis. Similarly, in Radlköfer's Monograph of the Sapindaceæ, I find it difficult to accept such characters for the genera as, “fruit contains saponine; fruit without saponine.”

In Eucalyptus in a given species there is variation in regard to the constituents of the oil. For example, as regards E. Wilkinsoniana, R. T. Baker:

At many different times of the year the oil contains small quantities of Eucalyptol; at other times, however, some phellandrene; it contains, moreover, a small amount of ester.

It is an invidious task to be the judge as to the amount of chemical variation which will be admitted as evidence of the validity of a botanical species.

E. rostrata, Schlecht., var. borealis, Baker and Smith, and E. lævopinea, R. T. Baker, var. minor, R. T. Baker (E. Wilkinsoniana, R. T. Baker) have been founded “on chemical evidence alone,” or mainly. I do not say that morphological evidence will not be forthcoming to justify this nomenclature, but it is not available yet, and it has been specially sought for. There are two ways of looking at this matter; one way is to endeavour to ascertain the position of a plant by morphological methods, and then to ascertain if the evidence supplied by physiology supports the view arrived at; or physiological evidence (e.g., based on examination of essential oil) may first be examined, and the morphological facts then brought under review.

Is the oil character the one invariable?

In a case such as the Stringybarks (to choose one group out of many) where there is an infinite gradation of forms, the result of environment, hybridisation, and perhaps other causes, the suggestion that in the oil there is a master-key to the limitation of species seems to be based on a shifting foundation.

The suggestion that we have at length discovered a kind of philosopher's stone is indeed alluring; that in all the manifold changes of Eucalyptus that we have at length obtained a test by which we can diagnose a species is tempting, but the test will only be found to be general in application, like those applied to the timbers.

As to the variation in timber in the genus, that is the experience of any man who has much to do with it. I do not wish to quote the views of the bush-worker, who is often ignorant and empirical; at the same time, many of them are very shrewd. The timber-inspector and the timber-merchant, who have broader views, however, both share this view.

The composition of the oil is not the only character other than that usually employed to aid the botanist in the diagnosis of Eucalypts. For example, I restored E. exserta, F.v.M., to specific rank, following up a clue given to me by the timber.

  ― 250 ―

That there are limitations in regard to the interpretation of morphological characters for the purposes of taxonomic research, I at once admit. Following is a very good example of such searching after the light:—

“As soon as three Orchidean forms (Monochanthus, Myanthus, and Catasetum) which had previously been ranked as three distinct genera, were known to be sometimes produced on the same spike, they were immediately included as a single species.”note

A botanist often has to work on incomplete material, and to unduly disinter the mistakes of morphologists, some of which (as regards Eucalyptus) have been made before the era of exhaustive field investigations on the genus inaugurated by myself, would be as unnecessary as to point out the mistakes of scientific discoverers in any other branch of science, who, by their work, have paved the way to research on higher planes.

Variation in oil.

The variation in oil constituents within the same species has already been referred to. To consider another aspect of the question, a man, when he makes a distillation, which costs much trouble and expense (which is certainly the case with Eucalyptus oil) is apt to stereotype its results; whereas, if he could make a hundred times as many distillations he could take a broader view of the variability of the oils.

Thousands of distillations require to be made before oil results can be based on material as varied as that on which the systematists referred to as “morphologists” base their conclusions.

The distillations of Eucalyptus oils from material of authenticated botanical origin, were inaugurated by me with the view (inter alia) of obtaining authentic Eucalyptus oils for therapeutic and other purposes, and also of ascertaining to what extent the oils could be used as aids in the diagnosis of species.

Researches on Eucalyptus oils may, however, be employed for two ends:—

  • 1. Acquiescence in the naming of existing species (e.g., E. saligna and E. botryoides).
  • 2. For the naming of new species.

As regards (1) if the premises be wrong,—if it should prove that E. saligna and E. botryoides are identical species, what becomes of the statement that the oils show them to be distinct?

If the answer be that there is some innate principle in these two trees that morphology does not reveal, then we require very strong evidence that the alleged oil differences are real and not apparent. But I have already touched upon this point.

It seems to me that an important difference between the morphological and the oil-system determination is this:—

In morphology you have a fixed standard termed the type.

In oils you have no fixed standard, the oil-constituents being variable within limits not yet determined and perhaps indeterminable.

  ― 251 ―

This brings one to ask:—What variation in amount of a constituent, or what constituent must be present or absent in any particular case to constitute a valid species?

Classification on oils alone associates dissimilar species.

We should reflect when we find it stated that the oils from E. bicolor, A. Cunn., are similar to those attributed to “E. bicolor,” and which are really the product of E. Bosistoana, F.v.M. If this should be founded on fact, then it proves that species with different genetic relationships resemble each other in oil-constituents.

The classification based on oils alone places certain species and their varieties in different groups, e.g.

E. sideroxylon, A. Cunn.

E. Stuartiana, F.v.M.

E. tereticornis, Sm.

E. rostrata, Schlecht.

It also brings together species which perhaps every other classification shows us do not exhibit close affinity. Instances of this can be quoted at any time.

To sum up, I think that characters based on the essential oils are subject to variation. They do not escape the interacting laws of change any more than morphological characters do.

Explanation of Plates (37–40).

Plate 37.

Plate 37: EUCALYPTUS CAPITELLATA, Sm. Lithograph by Margaret Flockton.

E. capitellata, Sm.

  • 1. Fruits (misplaced by White) of E. capitellata in White's “Voyage,” 1790, p. 226, of the “Peppermint Tree.”
  • 2a. Leaf; 2b, pointed operculum and flowers of a specimen from Dr. (J. E.) Smith, ex herb. Lambert in herb. Cant. Piece of the type of the species.
  • 3a. Leaf; 3b, buds, of R. Brown's E. congesta from Port Jackson.
  • 4a. Pair of juvenile leaves; 4b, pair of leaves in the alternate stage, showing the orbicular shape. From Middle Harbour, Port Jackson.
  • 5a. Buds; 5b, anthers; 5c, fruits, from Oatley, George's River, a few miles south of Port Jackson.
  • 6a. Leaf; 6b, buds; 6c and 6d, fruits. All from the same tree, North Shore, Port Jackson. Note the variation in the amount of exsertion of the valves, and the similarity of 6d to 1.
  • [N.B.—All the above are practically identical.]
  • 7a. Buds; 7b, fruits, from Guy Fawkes, New England.
  • 8a. Juvenile leaves in the alternate stage; 8b, mature leaf; 8c, buds; 8d, fruits of E. capitellata, var. (?) latifolia, Benth. (B.Fl. iii, 206). Portland, Vic., J. G. Robertson, 1842.
  • 9a. Leaf; 9b, buds; 9c, fruits of E. santalifolia var. Baxteri, Benth. Portland, Vic., J. G. Robertson, 1842.
  • 10a. Leaf, with buds attached; 10b, fruits of E. capitellata, Portland, Vic. Mr. Adams, through A. E. Kitson, 1904.
  • 11a. Leaf and buds; 11b, fruits. Sandy rises, Narracoorte, South Australia (W. Gill, 5/01).
  • 12a. Leaf; 12b, rugose buds, simulating E. alpina; 12c, fruits, Grampians, Victoria, 2,000 feet. (H. B. Williamson.)

  ― 252 ―

Plate 38.

Plate 38: EUCALYPTUS CAPITELLATA, Sm. (1-9). E. MUELLERINA, HOWITT, and ALLIES (10-18). Lithograph by Margaret Flockton.

E. capitellata (left hand of Plate, Nos. 1 to 9).

  • 1a. Buds, with rugged operculum; 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, fruits, all gathered from the same tree at Mt. Lofty, near Adelaide (Max Koch). Displaying a considerable amount of variation in exsertion of valves.
  • 2a. Pair of seedling leaves; 2b, buds; 2c, fruits from Osler's Creek, Gippsland, Victoria (A. W. Howitt). A seedling from the same tree was figured by Howitt at fig. 2, pl. 14, Trans. Roy. Soc. Vict., 1890–1. Mature leaves broadish. Specimens collected by Howitt at Wandin Yallock, and King Parrot Creek are identical.
  • 3a. Juvenile leaves; 3b, buds; 3c, fruits, Blackheath, New South Wales (J.H.M. and R. H. Cambage), of the Blue Mountains form described at p. 216.
  • 4a. Juvenile or intermediate leaves; 4b, buds; 4c, fruits, of the form from the Outer Domain, Sydney, described at p. 217.
  • 5. Leaf, buds and early fruits of the “E. dumosa” (Benth. non A. Cunn.) Blue Mountains, New South Wales (Backhouse), B.Fl. iii, 230. It is a twig of E. capitellata with small leaves, such as is common enough. [The venation in the small leaves of the specimen resembles that of E. incrassata, var. dumosa a good deal.]
  • 6a. Juvenile leaves; 6b, fruits of the “Blue-leaf Stringybark” described at p. 215. Hill Top, New South Wales (J.H.M.).
  • 7a. Buds; 7b, fruits of the E. eugenioides transit to E. capitellata, described at p. 216. Berrima, New South Wales, 9/01 (J.H.M. and J. L. Boorman).
  • 8a and 8b, buds; 8c. fruits. Wingello, New South Wales, 8/99 (J.H.M. and J. L. Boorman). 8a and 8b are from the same twig! 8a is typical for capitellata, while 8b would readily be pronounced eugenioides. I look upon this as small-fruited capitellata, and it is discussed at p. 215.
  • 9a. Buds; 9b, small fruits, with well exserted valves. Booral, New South Wales (A. Rudder). I look upon this as a small-fruited form of E. capitellata, and it is described at p. 214.

E. Muelleriana and allies (Nos. 10 to 18).

  • 10a. Buds and flowers; 10b, fruits. “Red Stringybark.” Walcha, New South Wales (A. R. Crawford).
  • 11a. Buds and flowers; 11b, fruits. Nundle, New South Wales (J. L. Boorman).
  • 12a. Leaf; 12b, buds (yellow); 12c, fruits. Attunga, 12 miles north-west of Tamworth, New South Wales (R. H. Cambage).
  • 13. Fruits. Harding's Mill, near Glen Innes, New South Wales (H. Deane).
  • 10–13. Are all from the northern table-land. The fruits are all more or less pear-shaped. 11 is more conoid than the rest. 13 is not fully ripe. They are obviously closely-allied forms, and I have no doubt that they are transit forms between E. macrorrhyncha and E. Muelleriana. I place them with the former species for the reasons stated at p. 229; but I think it is useful to contemplate their affinity with the latter.
  • 14a. Buds; 14b and 14c, fruits, all obtained from the same tree. Kanimbla Valley, Lowther Road, New South Wales (A. H. S. Lucas and J.H.M.) Note the narrow rims of 14b, which resemble those of E. nigra, R. T. Baker. The rims of 14c are much broader. I think the plant is a small-fruited form of E. Muelleriana, but other botanists may place it under E. eugenioides.
  • 15a. Buds; 15b, fruits of type of E. nigra, R. T. Baker. Woodburn, Richmond River (W. Baeuerlen). Compare 15b and 14b. I look upon E. nigra as a transit form between E. Muelleriana and E. eugenioides.
  • 16a. Leaf in the intermediate stage; 16b, mature leaf; 16c, buds, inclined to be angular; 16d, fruits. Stanthorpe, Queensland. “The common Stringybark of the district” (A. Murphy). I look upon this as a small-fruited form of E. Muelleriana, showing transit to E. eugenioides.
  • 17a. Buds; 17b, 17c, 17d, fruits taken from the same tree of type of E. Wilkinsoniana, R. T. Baker. (E. lœvopinea, R.T.B., var. minor.) Glenrock Paddocks, Barber's Creek, New South Wales (H. J. Rumsey).
  • 18a. Buds; 18b, fruits of co-type of E. Wilkinsoniana. Sutton Forest, New South Wales (R. T. Baker). The fruits of 18b, with flat rim, are closest to the form shown in 17b, and not a stable form. I look upon E. Wilkinsoniana as a small-fruited form of E. Muelleriana, undoubtedly showing transit to E. eugenioides.

  ― 253 ―

Plate 39.

Plate 39: EUCALYPTUS MACRORRHYNCHA, F.v.M. (3-21). E. EUGENIOIDES, Sieb. (1-2). Lithograph by Margaret Flockton.

E. eugenioides, Sieb. (1–2).

  • 1a and 1b. Juvenile foliage. Armidale (A. W. Howitt). [Note that 1a and 1b are still in the strictly opposite stage, and that they still retain their stellate hairs, yet the difference in the width is remarkable.] 1c, buds, inclined to be angular; 1d, fruits. For comment on these specimens see pp. 219 and 223.
  • 2a, Juvenile leaves; 2b, juvenile leaves a stage further, yet not beyond the stellate hairs stage; 2c, buds, slightly angular, but in a less advanced stage than 1c; 2d, fruits, flat-topped. Stanthorpe, Queensland (J. L. Boorman).

[There is no doubt that the Armidale and Stanthorpe specimens belong to the same form. I look upon it as E. eugenioides, showing transit to a small-fruited form of E. Muelleriana, and the matter is discussed at p. 219.]

E. macrorrhyncha, F.v.M. (3–21).

  • 3a. Leaf; 3b, buds; 3c, fruits. Chiltern, Victoria. Seen and named by Mueller.
  • 4. Fruits. Maryborough, Victoria (J. Blackburne).
  • 5a. Leaf; 5b, buds; 5c, fruit, Buchan, N. Gippsland (A. W. Howitt). The fruit is nearly typical, but the buds are nearer those of E. eugenioides.
  • 6a and 6b. Two juvenile leaves still in the opposite stage; 6c, leaf from the same place, showing the tufts of stellate hairs on the margin; 6d, leaf (same locality), with the hairs enlarged, showing their relative abundance; 6e, fruits; all between Bombala and Delegate, New South Wales (J.H.M.).
  • 7. Buds. Weddin, near Grenfell, New South Wales (J.H.M.).
  • 8. Fruits. Hassan's Walls, Bowenfels, New South Wales (J.H.M.).
  • 9a. Buds; 9b, fruits. Wellington, New South Wales (A. Murphy).
  • 10. Fruits. Warrumbungle Ranges, New South Wales (W. Forsyth).
  • 11a. Buds; 11b, large fruits; 11c, seedling raised from the seeds of 11b. Near top of Mount Bulaway, Warrumbungle Ranges, New South Wales (W. Forsyth). For notes on these specimens see p. 228.
  • 12a. 12b. Two pairs of juvenile leaves; 12c, buds (capitellata-like); 12d, fruits. Tingha, New South Wales (J. L. Boorman).
  • 13a. Buds, angular, capitellata-like; 13b, fruits. Emmaville, New South Wales (J. L. Boorman).
  • 14a. Buds; 14b, fruits of var. (?) brachycorys, Benth. (Type). New England, New South Wales (C. Stuart).
  • 15. Fruits, with remarkably angular rim. Capertee, New South Wales (J.H.M. and J. L. Boorman).
  • 16. Fruits. Borenore, New South Wales (H. Deane).
  • 17. Fruits. Cootamundra to Grenfell, New South Wales (A. Osborne). Nos. 16–17 closely resemble those of var. brachycorys.
  • 18a. Buds; 18b, fruits, very broad-rimmed, and scarcely angular. Stanthorpe, Queensland (F. M. Bailey).
  • 19a. Buds; 19b and 16c, fruits of a grandiflora form. Rylstone, New South Wales (R. T. Baker). Compare this with 15.
  • 20a. Buds; 20b, fruit of E. scyphoidea, Naudin—the type. See p. 226.
  • 21a, 21b (at foot of plate). Two pairs of juvenile leaves. Warialda (J. L. Boorman). This is the form of E. macrorrhyncha described at p. 230. It will be observed that these leaves are as narrow as those of E. eugenioides ever are. If they were alone, surely they would be referred to E. eugenioides. This form must be studied in conjunction with figs. 10–13 of Plate 38.

  ― 254 ―

Plate 40.

Plate 40: EUCALYPTUS EUGENIOIDES, Sieb. (with the exception of 1, which is E. marginata, Sm. lithograph by Margaret Flockton.

E. eugenioides, Sieb. (except No. 1).

  • 1a. Cotyledon leaf; 1b, juvenile leaf of E. marginata. Woodlupin Creek, Western Australia (A. G. Hamilton).
  • 2a. Juvenile leaves, just past the strictly opposite stage; 2b, mature leaf; 2c, anthers, of Sieber's No. 479, type of E. eugenioides.
  • 3a. Ripe buds and opening flowers; 3b, fruits, with slightly exserted valves, from Homebush, Sydney (J.H.M. and R. H. Cambage). The juvenile and mature leaves and flowers are strictly identical with Sieber's No. 479.
  • 4a. Juvenile leaves (note the stellate hairs) in the strictly opposite stage; 4b, juvenile leaves a stage further; 4c, buds; 4d and 4e, fruits taken from the same twig. Blackheath, New South Wales (J.H.M. and R. H. Cambage). The foliage, juvenile and mature, of this tree cannot be distinguished from Sieber's No. 479.
  • 5a. Mature leaf; 5b, buds; 5c, fruits of Sieber's No. 469, type of his E. acervula.
  • 6. Mature leaves and buds of Sieber's No. 583, type of E. oblonga, DC. There is a loose fruit attached to this specimen, but I refrain from figuring it because it is detached.
  • 7. Fruits of “White Stringybark,” Mudgee district (C. Marriott). Herbarium specimens of this Stringybark are identical with Sieber's No. 583. The fruits I have figured (7) are identical with the detached fruit referred to (6).
  • 8a. Mature leaf (rather broad); 8b, buds; 8c, fruits (rather large). Hurstville, near Sydney (J. H. Camfield).
  • 9a. Buds; 9b, fruits. Hilltop, New South Wales (J.H.M.). Note the long opercula.
  • 10a. Juvenile leaves; 10b, buds; 10c, fruits. Eden, south-east New South Wales (near Victorian border) (A. W. Howitt). Note the breadth of these juvenile leaves as compared with 4a, which are near the type. There is, indeed, much variation in the juvenile foliage of E. eugenioides.

[Comparing 10a with 4a (Plate 37), we see how different the juvenile foliage is from that of typical E. capitellata. But if we also compare 10a with the juvenile foliage of that form of E. capitellata depicted at 2a (Plate 38), we see how careful we must be not to determine E. eugenioides or E. capitellata on juvenile foliage alone. Reference to 2b and 2c (Plate 38) shows that the closer affinity of the plant in question (2a of pl. 38) is with E. capitellata rather than with E. eugenioides.]

  • 11a, Remarkably slender buds; 11b, remarkably small fruits. Walhalla, Gippsland, Victoria (A. W. Howitt).
  • 12a, Very slender buds; 12b, fruits, of the “Yangoura,” of the Victorian aborigines (A. W. Howitt). See p. 234.
  • 13a, Long, large buds; 13b, large pedicellate fruits. Agnes Bridge, Victoria (A. W. Howitt).
  • 14a, Juvenile leaf [note its great breadth]; 14b, buds; 14c, small fruits. Wingello, New South Wales (J. L. Boorman).
  • 15a, Juvenile leaf; 15b, buds; 15c, fruits, showing faint ribbing. Wyee, New South Wales (A. Murphy).
  • 16a, Buds; 16b, fruits, slightly domed, and with exserted valves. Foot of Mt. Lindsay, New South Wales (W. Forsyth).
  • 17a, Rather narrow leaf; 17b, fruits with exserted valves. Near 11-mile post, Inverell to Tingha (R. H. Cambage). See p. 236.
  • 18a, Juvenile leaves, past the opposite stage [note their great width]; 18b, buds; 18c and 18d, fruits, varying in size, exsertion of valves, and width of rim. All from Walcha district (J.H.M. and J. F. Campbell).
  • 19, Fruits, with well exserted valves. Drake, New South Wales (E. C. Andrews).
  • 20, Fruits, with sunk valves. Drake, New South Wales (A. Hagman).
  • 21a, Buds, inclining to be angular; 21b, shallow fruits. Lawrence, Clarence River, New South Wales (J. V. de Coque).
  • 22a, Buds: 22b, fruits, with valves well exserted. Murrurundi (J.H.M. and J. L. Boorman).