― 305 ―

CCLXXXVI. E. Mundijongensis Maiden.

In Journ. Roy. Soc., N.S.W., xlvii, 225 (1913).

FOLLOWING is the original description:—

Arbor alta, Cortex basi trunci dura et secedens. Rami teretes. Lignum pallidum. Folia circiter 15 cm. longa et 2 cm. lata, angusto-lanceolata, leniter falcate, nitentia, concoloria, crassa, coriacea, petiolata, penniveniis parum conspicuis. Alabastri in apicem acutati, clavati. Operculum in apicem acutatum circiter dimidio calycis tubo æquilongum. Flores non vidi. Fructus fere sessiles, cylindroidei, circiter 1·5 cm. longi et ·75 cm. diametro, margine angusta et sulcata. Valvarum apices sub orificio valde depressi.

A tall tree, about 80–100 feet high, and 5 feet in diameter about 4 feet from the ground. The trunk of the only specimen known at present leans somewhat and divides into two main branches of approximately equal diameter at about 25 feet from the ground.

Bark.—“Fine adherent bark at base, top clean” (Dr. Cleland). Specimens of the bark forwarded by Mr. H. M. Giles and also by Mr. Wallace, are hard, flaky, breaking off in long woody strips. Bark of smaller branches smooth, but exhibiting exfoliation. It has a good deal in common with the Peppermint barks of the Eastern States (e.g., E. piperita, Sm.).

Timber.—Pale coloured.

Juvenile leaves.—Coarse, thick, coriaceous, moderately shiny, equally green on both sides, petiolate, venation not very prominent, somewhat spreading at the base in some specimens, in others at an angle of about 60° to the midrib, and roughly parallel. Intramarginal vein not conspicuous, and somewhat removed from the edge. Size of leaves seen by me about 12 cm. long and 5 broad.

Mature leaves.—Narrow lanceolar, somewhat falcate, shiny, equally green on both sides, thickish, coriaceous, petiolate, venation inconspicuous and penniveined, margins thickened, and the fine intramarginal vein not close to the edge. Leaves seen by me about 15 cm. long, and 2 broad.

Buds.—Not seen perfectly ripe. Pointed clavate, slightly angular, the operculum pointed, very slightly exceeding the calyx-tube in diameter, and about half as long as the same. Each half ripe bud about 1 cm. long with a pedicel of half that length, apparently three to seven buds in the umbel, with a strap-shaped peduncle of 1·5–2 cm. Flowers not seen.

Fruits.—With short peduncles to nearly sessile, cylindroid, about 1·5 cm. long, and about half that in diameter, with a thin, grooved rim, valves three or four, and the tips well sunk below the orifice.

  ― 306 ―


This is only known at present from one (perhaps two) localities in Western Australia. Following is the history of the species so far as I know it:—

Early in 1909, Dr. J. B. Cleland gave me a photograph of a tree and a few fragments of fruits and leaves from Jarrahdale, Western Australia. His label was “near Jarrahdale. Fine adherent bark at base, top clean. Near Jarrahdale Forest.”

I recognised the specimens as identical with leaves and fruits given me by the late Mr. J. G. Luehmann, of the National Herbarium, Melbourne, many years ago when I intended to visit Western Australia, a trip which was postponed. This specimen bore the label, “Close to the inn near Jarrah Dale, about 28 miles from Perth (Sir) John Forrest, 22nd March, 1882.”

The locality is near Mundijong Railway Station. I have been in communication with Mr. C. R. P. Andrews, of Perth, on the subject, both before and since my visit to the western State in 1909. Although I planned to visit the tree, and actually got as far as the railway station, I was compelled to return to Perth without inspecting it.

Mr. Andrews kindly communicated with the local teacher, and the following are extracts from two of his letters:—

The teacher (Mr. Stephen Wallace) states that the tree grows about 5 miles from Jarrahdale, and he therefore wrote to Mr. R. Cowen, on whose property the tree stands, for particulars. In forwarding the specimens, Mr. Cowen remarked, “Suckers are not obtainable. As far as I know, the tree is the only one of its kind in the district, and it seems to me to be a great age. The diameter is about 5 feet, and the tree grows on poor shallow soil. The sub-soil is nearly pure pipe-clay, and it is in a very wet place, both in summer and winter. Local opinion generally classes it as a Tuart.”

The teacher states that it is a difficult tree to get specimens from, except when high winds blow the branches off. He also states that it appears to be in danger of destruction from white ants.

Mr. Wallace has kindly forwarded small sections of one of the smaller branches and also some twigs at Mr. Andrews's suggestion. For additional material I am indebted to Mr. H. M. Giles, of South Perth.


1. With E. incrassata Labill. Mueller suggested this affinity on a label on Sir John Forrest's specimen.

The affinity, or, at all events, the resemblance, is there, no doubt. We have it in the cylindroid fruits, but I know of none quite so cylindrical as those of the present species. As regards the buds, the operculum is shorter than the calyx-tube in some forms of E. incrassata also, but there is an absence of multiple ribbing in the present

  ― 307 ―
species. The juvenile leaves are somewhat different and the mature leaves are very different to those of any form of E. incrassata I know. The proposed species is a large tree, far exceeding in size that of any form of E. incrassata I ever heard of.

2. With E. gomphocephala DC.

“Local opinion generally classes it as a Tuart” (correspondent of Mr. Andrews). Figures of E. gomphocephala can be seen in the “Eucalyptographia,” and at Plate 92, Part XXIV of the present work. The affinities are not close, the swelling of the operculum in E. gomphocephala is a very prominent character, and there is only the trace of a swelling observable in the buds of the new species (they are, however, unripe). Occasionally, e.g., at fig. 2f of the plate quoted, the rim of the fruit of E. gomphocephala may be reduced, in which case the fruit bears some resemblance to that of the new species. But it would appear that the fruit of E. gomphocephala always has exserted valves. The resemblance of the leaves is not specially close.

When I get flowers I will again raise the question of the affinities of this tree; in the absence of them, any conclusions must be of a provisional nature.

  ― 308 ―


(Continued from p. 289, Part XLIX.)


THE earliest reference to Eucalyptus trees in the field is by Banks in 1770 (Hooker's “Journal of the Right Hon. Sir Joseph Banks,” 1896), but although he and Solander observed them at both Botany Bay and Northern Queensland, their barks do not appear to have attracted his attention. This is not to be surprised at, as, close to the sea, they do not exhibit that degree of variation which is observed further inland. Apart from that, his visit was but a flying one, with the nature of the country, its aborigines, its fauna, its plants, all most puzzlingly strange.

Mr. Caley [George Caley was in New South Wales from 1800 to 1810.—J.H.M.] has observed in the limits of the colony of Port Jackson nearly fifty species of Eucalyptus, most of which are distinguished, and have proper names applied to them, by the native inhabitants, who, from differences in the colour, texture, and scaling of the bark [the italics are mine], and in the ramification and general appearance of these trees, more readily distinguish them than botanists have as yet been able to do (Robert Brown in Flinders' “Voyage to Terra Australis,” ii, 545, 1814).

In the same work (i, 18) Robert Brown had already stated—

Of Eucalyptus alone nearly 100 species have been already observed; most of these are trees, many of them are great, and some of enormous dimensions. …

But only fourteen species were known to science in 1814, and only six species are referred to by Brown in his Collected Works (Ray Society).

Hooker's Eulogium (Proc. Linn. Soc., 1888, pp. 56–7), says:—

Now, Brown, in the appendix to Flinders' “Voyage” says that he collected nearly 4,000 species (3,900) in Australia … The species were, in a great measure, at any rate, described as collected in Australia itself, the descriptions were written out in the homeward voyage, and it only remained on the return to England to complete the work.

It seems impossible that he excluded the Eucalypts. I have referred to the matter in my “Sir Joseph Banks,” p. 42.

If Caley or Brown made notes on the bark, they have not been preserved (or at all events, they have not been seen by an Australian specialist in the genus); from men of their powers of observation the notes could not fail to have been of interest. The aborigines of the districts in which Caley worked are practically extinct now. It is scarcely possible they abstained from making notes on such a difficult and interesting subject. We know that Caley brought specimens of timbers to England (“A series of specimens of the native woods collected in New Holland by the late Mr.

  ― 309 ―
George Caley,” and presented to the Linnean Society, Trans. Linn. Soc. xvii, 597 (1832) have disappeared, and, probably, losing their labels, have long since been destroyed). Even a manuscript list of Caley's (if it exists), describing the barks of New South Wales trees, would be worthy of perusal, for year by year, we can interpret such notes better.

Dr. A. R. Rendle, Keeper of Botany, British Museum, has kindly given me original labels with some of Caley's specimens, and I have given notes on them, e.g., E. eximia, Part XLII, p. 30.

The first reference I can find to the use of the term “Gum Tree” is “The Red Gum-Tree (Eucalyptus resinifera)” in White's “Voyage,” p. 231 (1790). It had evidently got into use, for we have “The Red Gum-tree” in G. Barrington's “History of New South Wales,” p. 461 (1802). The term arose without reference to the bark, but to the Kino or “gum” which exuded from the tree.

As early as “Gum” we have the name “The Peppermint tree (Eucalyptus piperita)” in White's “Voyage,” p. 226 (1790). This also did not refer to the bark, but to the leaves, which were early distilled for medicinal purposes for local use. See p. 328, Park LXVII of my “Forest Flora and New South Wales.”

The words “White Gum” will be found in Barracks's MS. Journal of 1798, annotated and explained by R. H. Cambage in Proc. Roy. Aust. Hist. Soc., vi, 33. The explorer was then somewhere near Bundanoon. The first use of the term “White Gum” I can trace in print is in Trans. Linn. Soc., xv, 192, 278, 285 (1827), as the abode of certain birds. I invite the attention of correspondents to these early vernacular names. The timber of “Gum,” &c., was spoken of by James Flemming, “Journal of Explorations, Port Phillip,” p. 25 (1802). It was apparently a common thing to speak of gum-timber by that time.

Early uses of the term “Blue Gum” are as follow:—

“Blue Gum,” Collins' “Account of New South Wales,” ii, 235 (1802). “Blue Gum Trees,” Oxley's “Expedition” (1820).

Whether the first Blue Gum tree was named because the leaves were of a bluish cast (glaucous), or the young stems or branches, or both, cannot be stated with reference to a particular species. It may, or may not be, that E. saligna, the “Sydney Blue Gum,” was the first species to be called “Blue Gum.” Although E. globulus, the Tasmanian and Victorian Blue Gum, has a bluer cast, the name, as applied to it, did not get into literature till later than 1802.

The name “Stringybark,” which even more than Ironbark is in common use throughout eastern and South Australia, does not appear to have early got into books. We have it in P. Cunningham, op. cit., i, 187 (1827). But Mr. R. H. Cambage, op. cit. pp. 9 and 33, shows that it occurs in Barracks's MS. Journal in the Year 1798 in the Mittagong and Moss Vale (New South Wales) districts. In page 33 it is a “short Stringy Bark,” and therefore perhaps a Peppermint that is spoken of. Later on, one finds it noted as “The String Bark tree” in J. O. Balfour's “Sketch of New South Wales,” 37 (1845), and “Vessels formed of Stringybark” are referred to in Westgarth's “Australia Felix,” p. 73 (1848).

  ― 310 ―

Then, in noting the earliest reference to Ironbark I can put my hands on, it is to be noted that Gum-tree was synonymous with Eucalyptus, and that Ironbark was deemed (correctly) to be a form of Gum. Here we have an undoubted case of the use of the bark as a term in classification—“A species of Gum-tree, the bark of which on the trunk is that of the Ironbark of Port Jackson.” See G. Barrington's, “History of New South Wales,” p. 263 (1802). Then Allan Cunningham in 1817 uses it in connection with E. sideroxylon. See Part XII, p. 82 of the present work. “Ironbark” is mentioned in Trans. Linn. Soc., xv, 260 (1827).

Although there is a reference in the very earliest days of settlement to the Port Jackson timbers reminding the early settlers of Box (Buxus) because of their hardness, I cannot trace a very early record of the definite use of the term “Box” as so applied. In any case, the use of the term did not apply to the bark. Allan Cunningham, in his MSS. dated 1817, speaks of “Bastard Box,” and this is repeated in Oxley, p. 126 (1820).

Nor was the use of the term “Apple” one borrowed from the bark; it referred to the general appearance of the tree, and, while probably first applied to Angophora intermedia was certainly applied to certain straggly, more or less bushy Eucalypts. In Oxley's work, 1820, p. 276, he speaks of “That species of Eucalyptus vulgarly called the Apple-tree.” In Leichhardt's “Overland Expedition, etc.,” p. 264 (1847), and in other pages, he speaks of “Apple Gum.”

I do not know what is the earliest use of the term “Bloodwood,” but I find the term “Blood-tree” (for the same thing, but now obsolete) in Trans. Linn. Soc., xv, 271 (1827), where such trees are given the aboriginal name of Mun-ning (probably E. corymbosa is meant), and they are stated to be the home of the Banksian Cockatoo. Here again the name does not refer to the bark.

An early reference to the “Cider Gum” (E. Gunnii) I find in Ross's “Hobart Town Almanack,” 1830, p. 119.

Then we come to “Blackbutted Gum,” Peter Cunningham's “Two Years in Australia,” i, 187 (1827), in Sturt's “Southern Australia,” ii, 236 (1833), and to “Blackbutt,” Leichhardt's “Overland Expedition,” p. 49 (1847). It was first applied to trees with dark, fibrous barks, which well covered the butts, but when applied to interior situations (the first use is by Sturt), and in the Goldfields of Western Australia, it means a Gum, with more or less flaky, hard, deciduous, bark, reaching not very far up the butt.

The term “Mountain Gum” was first used, so far as I know, by C. Sturt in “Southern Australia,” iii, 118 (1833). It is one of those local names, very widely used, which have caused a great deal of confusion.

Then in Leichhardt's “Overland Expedition to Port Essington” (1847) we have (so far as I know) the earliest references to—

  • 1. “Moreton Bay Ash” (E. tessellaris).
  • 2. “Flooded Gum,” p. 7. This is E. grandis (and to a less degree E. saligna), and is a reference to the moist situations such trees prefer.

  •   ― 311 ―
  • 3. “Spotted Gum,” p. 11 (following Hooker, 1844). This is E. maculata, and is in reference to the spotted or rather blotched appearance of the bark. As knowledge progressed, it was found that a vernacular such as this, and indeed many others, became applied to more than one species. It was used by P. Cunningham, op. cit., 1827. In the same work, at i, 187, I find the term “Woolly Gum,” but this is now out of use, being superseded by Woolly-butt.

The earliest reference I can find to the use of the term “Mallee” is by W. Westgarth in “Australia Felix,” p. 73 (1848). It is of aboriginal origin.

“Weeping Gum.” “A kind of Eucalyptus (this is E. coriacea, A. Cunn.—J.H.M.) with long drooping leaves, called the `Weeping Gum,' is the most elegant of the family.” Mrs. Meredith's, “My Home in Tasmania,” i, 169 (1852).

The name “Swamp Gum,” which I first find in Mitchell's paper in Proc. Roy. Soc., Van Diemen's Land, ii, 132 (1853), has much the same meaning as “Flooded Gum.”

The use of the name “Lemon Scented Gum” (E. maculata, var. citriodora) will be found in G. Bennett's “Gatherings of a Naturalist,” p. 265 (1860).

We have now arrived at modern times, and can take up the vernaculars in Mueller's writings in the fifties. The indexes of the volumes of the present work catalogue a very large number of vernacular names.

I offer these records of early vernacular names not as exhaustive (they are, indeed, almost casual); they may be useful in inviting the attention of students to trace the dates of entry of some plant-vernaculars into our language.

I will now invite attention to two statements of a general character concerning the barks of the Eucalypts.

As regards Mr. R. T. Baker's statement, as cited below, that the classification by the cortical system was introduced by the first settlers, the observation is not historically correct, although it has a stratum of truth in it. I have just submitted eighteen vernaculars, giving the earliest dates of their use as known to me, but only five of them, it appears to me, viz., Ironbark, White Gum, Blackbutt, Stringybark, Woolly Gum (Woolly-butt), and Spotted Gum, are based on the barks. At the same time the use of the bark for classification by the public is a valuable one, and as people become better informed, they will make a more accurate use of it.

1. “The Gum trees are so designated as a body from producing a gummy, resinous matter, while the peculiarities of the bark usually fix the particular names of the species—thus the Blue, Spotted, Blackbutted, and Woolly Gums are so nominated from the corresponding appearance of their respective barks; the Red and White Gums from their wood; and the Flooded Gum from growing on flooded land.” (P. Cunningham's “Two Years in New South Wales,” i, 200 (1827).

2. “The first practical classification of our Eucalypts was cortical—one that was introduced by the first settlers of Port Jackson, 1788, and founded on the appearance of the bark, and this grouping of these trees has lasted to this day.” (R. T. Baker's “Hardwoods of Australia,” p. 137).

  ― 312 ―


i. Mueller, 1859.—The first serious attempt (other than that of the unpublished one of Caley) to group Eucalypts by their bark was not made until 1859, when Mueller (Journ. Linn. Soc., iii, 99), as already indicated by me in Part I of the present work, p. 2, divided them into six groups, viz.:—

  • 1. Leiophloiœ.—Smooth barks or Gums.
  • 2. Hemiphloiœ.—Half-barks or Boxes.
  • 3. Rhytiphloiœ.—With wrinkled persistent bark, the least satisfactory of the groups.
  • 4. Pachyphloiœ.—Stringybarks.
  • 5. Schizophloiœ.—Ironbarks.
  • 6. Lepidophloiœ.—Barks friable and lamellar.

I did not quite understand what was meant by No. 6 at Part I, but at Part XXII, p. 37, of the present work, I have fully explained, I think, what Mueller intended to convey.

It was probably the perusal of Mueller's paper that caused Hooker to write to Bentham, under date 8th August, 1859, as follows:—

Take Eucalyptus altogether as a genus, and it is really a remarkable vegetable, considering the number of forms its bark assumes; that alone would make it notable. (L. Huxley's “Life of Hooker.”)

Bentham, 1866.—Then Bentham (B. Fl., iii, 186, 1866) writes—

F. Mueller has proposed sections founded on the nature of the bark, of the value of which I am totally unable to judge, nor have I any means of availing myself of them, for the specimens themselves never show the character, and a large proportion of them are either unaccompanied by any notes of it, or the collectors' notes are from various causes indefinite, unreliable, or even contradictory.

Then in “Eucalyptographia,” Mueller elaborated his system of 1859, as we shall presently see, but he proposes to change his No. 4 (Pachyphloiœ) as follows:—

In “Eucalyptographia” (under E. tetradonta) he says:—

… the systematic term Pachyphloiœ, adopted collectively for all the Stringybark trees, might perhaps give way to the still more expressive designation Inophloiœ, all stringybark trees, as the name implies, producing a very fibrous bark.

I am not aware that anyone has followed Mueller in this substitution of Inophloiœ for Pachyphloiœ. The stringybarks form one of the most natural of the bark-groups, and there is no justification in replacing one established term by another which is a synonym.

Huxley's views on the coining of new technical terms may be quoted here, and the moral is capable of very wide application:—

…. terms which are open to criticism, but which I adopt in the accompanying table, because they have been used. It is better for science to accept a faulty name which has the merit of existence, than to burthen it with a faultless newly invented one. (“Critiques and Addresses,” p. 153.)

  ― 313 ―

ii. Mueller, 1884.—Mueller, at the end of the “Eucalyptographia” (1884), placed the species under sections, so far as he was able. Following are his lists, and, with our wider knowledge, the positions assigned to many of the species in the sections have since been altered, as will be shown in my grouping of the barks. Mueller's 1884 classification is not an improvement on his 1859 one; the reverse is the case.

1. LEIOPHLOIÆ (Mueller, 1884).

pauciflora (coriacea).  hæmastoma
sepulcralis ochrophloia
Behriana platyphylla
doratoxyton salmonophloia
diversicolor latifolia
clavigera corynocalyx (cladocalyx). 
maculata Torelliana
cordata urnigera
rostrata tereticornis
Gunnii redunca
salubris saligna
punctata obcordata
megacarpa globulus


stellulata odorata
polyanthema hemiphloia
largiflorens (bicolor).  pruinosa
populifolia Howittiana
drepanophylla microtheca
Raveretiana patens
decipiens terminalis
Abergiana trachyphloia
corymbosa Watsoniana
eximia rudis
setosa resinifera
fœcunda robusta
botryoides longifolia
cornuta gomphocephala

3. INOPHLOIÆ. (An attempted suppression of Pachyphloiæ, as already indicated.)

eugenioides Stuartiana
acmenoides piperita
capitellata obliqua
microcorys macrorrhyncha
Baileyana marginata
pulverulenta (cinerea is meant, see Part XXI, p. 3).  Planchoniana

  ― 314 ―


ptychocarpa. (No. 3 is the same as 4, as we have already seen.)


Sieberiana Cloeziana
crebra ficifolia
siderophloia calophylla


phœnicea peltata

In the following cases Mueller felt uncertain as to the place in his sections certain species should occupy, and he therefore arranged them as intermediates:—


tessellaris occidentalis

[We have three very dissimilar barks here.]


paniculata   leucoxylon

[The reason why Mueller suspended these two species between the Ironbarks and the Smooth-barks, was because he had confused—

  • (a) E. paniculata (an Ironbark) with E. fasciculosa (a Smooth-bark). The confusion is explained at Part XIV, p. 140.
  • (b) E. leucoxylon (a Smooth-bark) with E. sideroxylon (an Ironbark). The confusion is explained at Part XII, p. 82.

In other words, E. paniculata and E. sideroxylon should go to the Schizophloiœ, and E. fasciculosa and E. leucoxylon to the Leiophloiæ.]



Here we have a key to the confusion of E. drepanophylla (Schizophloiœ) with E. leptophleba (Rhytiphloiæ), see Part XLIX, p. 264.



[Whether he included E. radiata in E. amygdalina (which is probable), or not, only Hemiphloiæ (see p. 322), and Leiophloiæ are possibly in question.]

  ― 315 ―



[E. viminalis is normally a Smooth-bark, though never quite free from rough bark at the butt. In some trees this rough bark extends a considerable distance along the trunk. See Part XXVIII, p. 168.]



[In my view, this is a member of the Hemiphloiæ. While there is some variation in the bark, as indeed in so many others, I do not know of sufficient in this species to admit it into the other groups mentioned.]

13. Of the following species, Mueller did not know the nature of the bark, or of that of some of them; being such small species, he felt uncertain:—

stricta angustissima
Oldfieldii santalifolia
Todtiana caesia
buprestium gracilis
uncinata alba
gamophylla brachyandra
incrassata oleosa
cneorifolia Foelschiana
vernicosa pachypoda
erythronema cosmophylla
alpina Preissiana
pachyphylla pyriformis
macrocarpa tetraptera
odontocarpa eudesmioides
tetragona erythrocorys

[Of many of them we can speak now as to their bark, and I have transferred most to a practically natural group, dependent on habit—the Mallees or Marlocks, to be dealt with below, p. 321.]

ii. Maiden, 1891.—In the “Educational Gazette of New South Wales” for June, 1891, p. 4, in an article on “The Study of Eucalypts,” I wrote as follows (only New South Wales species were dealt with):—

Because of the height of these trees, and their uncertain periods of flowering, our readiest method of approximately distinguishing between them is by means of their barks. For this purpose we notice two things:

  ― 316 ―

1. The texture, whether smooth, like a “White-gum” (haemastoma); spotted like the “Spotted-gum” (maculata); scaly, like the “Bloodwood” (corymbosa); compactly matted, or sub-fibrous, like the “Woolly Butt” (longifolia); or presenting the textures of bark well known under the names of “Ironbark,” “Stringybark,” and so on.

2. Whether the roughish outside bark extends to the branches (e.g., corymbosa), or is confined to the trunk, e.g., Blackbutt (pilularis). …

Of the several groups of Eucalypts, two are fairly well defined—those with furrowed, hard bark, called Ironbarks, and those with fibrous barks, well known as Stringybarks. Even these two groups are not separated absolutely from the other species, some of which tend to approach them in the texture of their bark; thus, the “Mountain Ash” of the Blue Mountains and the southern mountainous districts (E. Sieberiana) (E. gigantea was added later.—J.H.M.), sometimes resembles an Ironbark and, in fact, often goes by that name. Also the Peppermint (E. piperita), and the Blackbutt (E. pilularis) sometimes have barks fibrous enough to fall within the category of Stringybarks. These instances may be largely multiplied, and I go into this detail to emphasise the fact that the local names of Eucalypts are somewhat elastic, and do not usually denote one species and no other. It is therefore desirable, as a rule, to guard against fitting botanical names on to the local ones, for we have five Blue Gums for example while some species, e.g., amygdalina (radiata) have numerous local names.

There are, however, a few Eucalypts which have, I believe, appropriated certain local names to themselves, that is, the following are not ambiguous, and if the local names are properly applied, there is little difficulty in assigning the botanical ones The principal are:—

Bloodwood (E. corymbosa), Mountain Bloodwood (E. eximia), Blackbutt (E. pilularis), Yellow Box (E. melliodora), Woolly Butt (E. longifolia), Spotted Gum (E. maculata), White Mahogany (E. acmenioides), Swamp Mahogany (E. robusta), Bastard Mahogany (E. botryoides), Tallow Wood (E. microcorys).

It will be convenient for us to study Eucalypts according to a practical, though not strictly scientific, classification.

1. Gum Trees, a term frequently applied in a general sense to all Eucalypts, because there exudes from their trunks a reddish astringent “gum” or kino. The term, in a restricted sense, is applied to those with smooth barks. Following are our chief “Gum Trees”:—

  • (a) White Gum so called on account of the colour of the bark); hæmastoma, Gunnii, goniocalyx, pauciflora (coriacea), viminalis.
  • (b) Red Gum (so called on account of the colour of the wood); E. rostrata (mainly found on the Murray).

  •   ― 317 ―
  • (c) Blue Gum (these and the following Gums so called on account of the the tint of the bark); E. saligna, the principal Blue Gum of the coast districts; E. Maideni, south-east New South Wales, for many years deemed to be E. globulus (Tasmanian and Victorian Blue Gum).
  • (d) Grey Gum, E. punctata (which is sometimes also known as “Leather-jacket”) E. tereticornis (which is sometimes also known as “Bastard Box”).

2. Our Ironbarks are as follows:—

She Ironbarks (E. paniculata), Red-flowering Ironbark (E. sideroxylon), Broad-leaved Ironbark (E. siderophloia), Narrow-leaved Ironbark (E. crebra), Silver-leaved Ironbark of the north west (E. melanophloia).

3. Following are our Stringybarks:—

E. obliqua, E. macrorrhyncha, E. capitellata, “Coast Stringybark; also known as “Broad-leaved or Silvery Stringybark,” owing to its greyish bark. E. eugenioides “Stringybark” (has a warm brown cast). Coast and Blue Mountains.

4. Box. When a Gum-tree has a closely-matted fibrous bark, with interlocked tough wood, it is usually termed a “Box,” from a fancied resemblance to the Turkey box-wood which is used for engraving. Following are our principal New South Wales Box-trees:—

E. hemiphloia, the commonest Box of the coast districts; E. largiflorens (bicolor), Grey Box; E. microtheca, Bastard Box, or Coolibah of the interior; E. polyanthemos, under this botanical name there is no doubt that two distinct trees, viz., Red Box or Slaty Gum, and lignum vitæ or Poplar-leaved Box, are included. (The latter is E. Baueriana, as afterwards ascertained); E. populifolia Bimble Box.

5. Mahogany. Some of our Eucalyptus timbers are called “Mahoganies,” owing to a resemblance in appearance and texture to West Indian Mahogany. They are as follows:—

White Mahogany (E. acmenioides), Bastard Mahogany (E. botryoides), Swamp Mahogany (E. robusta), Red or Forest Mahogany (E. resinifera).

iv. Cambage, 1913. Mr. R. H. Cambage, Journ. Roy. Soc., N.S.W., xlvii, 30, 1913, classifies Eucalyptus barks into five groups:—

  • 1. Smooth. The Leiophloiæ of Mueller; the Gums.
  • 2. Scaly. He gives E. corymbosa, of the Bloodwood group, … as a type.
  • 3. Scaly to sub-fibrous. This is an intermediate group, and includes the Boxes.
  • 4. Fibrous. The Pachyphloiæ of Mueller; the Stringybarks.
  • 5. Furrowed. The Schizophloiæ of Mueller; the Ironbarks.

I reproduce what he said, for he makes the first geographical classification of some of the barks.

  ― 318 ―

For the purpose of discussing the distribution of various kinds of bark, only well marked types have been selected, between each of which there are insensible gradations. I have not included the hemiphloiæ or half-barked section, because this designation gives no clue whatever to the nature or texture of the bark on the lower portions of the boles, and this character of rough bark occurring on the trunk in varying extent, with smooth branches, may be found distributed in some measure throughout most of the sections.

“There are so many gradations in the textures of the Eucalyptus barks, that it is impossible to account for them all in detail within the limits of five sections, and in a few cases a particular class of bark may be almost equally distributed over two climatic divisions.

“In considering the allocation of the sections in New South Wales, the following four geographical divisions will be referred to, viz.:—the Coastal Area, the Mountain Region, Western Slopes, and Interior (see Plate I, not reproduced). In the following table the word “first” signifies “most abundant,” and “fourth” denotes “least abundant” in the particular division under which the number appears.

Barks.  Coastal.  Mountains.  Western Slopes.  Interior. 
Smooth … … … …  Second … …  First … …  Third … …  Fourth. 
Scaly … … … …  First … …  Fourth (?) …  Second … …  Third (?). 
Scaly to sub-fibrous … …  Third … …  Fourth … …  Second … …  First. 
Fibrous … … …  First … …  Second … …  Third … …  Fourth. 
Furrowed … … …  First … …  Fourth … …  Second … …  Third. 

Smooth Barks.—The smooth barks, which include such trees as Eucalyptus viminalis and E. coriacea, are perhaps more typical of the Mountain Region than any other, with the Coastal Area ranking a close second. It seems remarkable that as the ascent is made, especially above 4,000 feet, and the more rigid climatic conditions are encountered, the Eucalypts, particularly if growing in the open, instead of being more densely coated with thick fibrous bark, are gradually restricted to the smooth-barked types, such as E. coriacea and rubida in New South Wales and Victoria, and E. Gunnii, coccifera, and vernicosa in Tasmania. This goes to show that the actual protective qualities of the bark are not wholly regulated by the texture, but also depend upon the constituents contained in the bark.

Scaly Barks.—Among the scaly-barked Eucalypts, of which E. corymbosa of the Bloodwood group may be considered as a type, there are various gradations, and the section may be extended to include such trees as E. robusta. This class of bark, which is something between a scaly and a woolly, probably most nearly represents that of the earliest type of Eucalypt, and is most plentiful in the Coastal Area, next on the Western Slopes, and least in the Mountain Region.

  ― 319 ―

Scaly to Sub-fibrous.—In the sub-fibrous class, or what is a sort of transition from scaly to shortly-fibrous, we have amongst others E. populifolia and E. hemiphloia, of what are known as the Box-tree group, the bark of which is usually of a grey colour. The fibre is very short, the bark not particularly thick and usually covers most of the trunk and often the branches as well. The Box timbers are very hard, and like the Ironbarks, this class of Eucalypt absolutely shuns the colder situations, neither group having a representative in Tasmania. The Box-tree section is most common in the Interior and next to that, on the Western Slopes, occurring also in the Coastal Area, but absent from the mountains above an altitude of 3,000 feet in latitudes south of 32 degrees.

Fibrous Barks.—The commonest forms of fibrous-barked trees are known as Stringybarks, of which E. eugenioides and E. obliqua may be mentioned as types. Most of these Stringybarks occur in the Coastal Area, and next in the Mountain Region, while there is only one species, E. macrorrhyncha, on the Western Slopes, and, except for an occasional tree of the last-mentioned species, the fibrous-barked Eucalypt is unknown in the Interior. This distribution is of great interest, and appears to be in response to climatic conditions. A second form of fibrous bark, which is less stringy than the typical Stringybarks, and usually of a grey colour, is known as Peppermint-bark, from the fact that the species on which it grows possesses leaves which emit a strong odour of peppermint when crushed. The Peppermint group, of which E. dives, Andrewsi, amygdalina (radiata), and piperita are typical, belongs chiefly to the Mountain Region, and occurs also in the Coastal Area, but is absent from both the Western Slopes and the Interior, in fact, to an observer descending the western side of the mountains, the presence of the Peppermints is evidence that cool conditions have not yet been left behind, while the occurrence of the Box-trees denotes that the country below the margin of the winter snow has been reached, and that fairly warm and comparatively dry conditions prevail. Three of the typical Peppermints, viz., E. dives, amygdalina and Andrewsi, rarely, if ever, descend below an altitude of 2,000 feet in latitudes north of 35 degrees, so that it seems probable that prior to the great uplift in the Kosciusko period, these species, in their present state of development did not exist in New South Wales except perhaps in the extreme south, and this latter possibility could apparently only apply to the first two.

Furrowed Barks.—The hard furrowed-barked trees of which the Ironbarks E. crebra and E. sideroxylon may be regarded as types, are most numerous in the Coastal Area, and next to that, on the Western Slopes, being practically unknown in the Mountain Region above an altitude of 3,000 feet. It seems curious that the one condition these hard-timbered, thick-barked Eucalypts avoid more than any other, is the cold. One species with equally rough furrowed bark on the trunk, but with softer fissile timber, viz., E. Sieberiana, which belongs to the Mountain Ash group flourishes from the sea level up to an elevation of about 3,500 feet on the ocean side of the mountains, but is almost unknown west of the Main Divide. E. Smithii is another species with furrowed bark on the lower part of the bole, and is found east of the Main Divide below an altitude of 3,000 feet.”

  ― 320 ―

v. Baker, 1919.—Mr. R. T. Baker in his “Hardwoods of Australia,” p. 137 (1919) divides Eucalypts into eleven groups, according to the barks, as follows:—

“1. Bloodwoods.—In this group of trees the bark is rough, rigid, reddish in colour, friable, and very short in the fibre, with medium furrows.

“2. Mahoganies.—These have a bark almost identical with that of the Stringybarks.

“3. Boxes.—This is a more compact, fibrous-ridged bark than any of the previous groups, a light grey in colour, and the lattice pattern much smaller than in the Stringybarks, the furrows less deep than in any other lattice pattern group.

“4. Tallow Woods.—This bark is yellow ochre in colour, laminated and scarcely rigid or furrowed.

“5. Stringybarks.—These are characterised by the long fibres which intertwine and cross lattice-like, forming ridges and depressions, and are reddish-brown or grey in colour.

“6. Woollybutts.—This bark may be described as a coarser kind than, or variety of, the Box bark.

“7. Blackbutts.—These have similar characters to the Stringybarks, only black at the surface, as though burnt, and not extending so far up the trunk or branches.

“8. Gums.—The largest group of all, having a smooth, pinkish, yellowish tint or whitish bark.

“9. Peppermints.—These barks might be described as a fine lattice pattern, and rather closer in texture than that of the Stringybarks, but shorter in the fibre and the colour more bordering on that of the Boxes.

“10. Ashes.—Somewhat similar in character to the Blackbutts.

“11. Ironbarks.—A hard, rugged, compact, broadly-latticed pattern, high ridged bark, either black or grey on the outer surface, and always dark red inside.”

Some of these barks are illustrated, usually in profile.

vi. Maiden, 1921.—

Following is a grouping of the barks so far as I have been able to do it, and I would point out that no approximately complete classification can be offered until our knowledge of some barks is very much more complete than it is at present.

It will be found desirable, in the present state of our knowledge, to combine study of the bark with that of size and habit of the species. In due course I shall offer a large number of photographs which illustrate these three characters. Further, it seems natural and convenient to combine colour (and even texture) of timber with the above classification, based on external characters, as it is the common practice of the Australian botanist and forester to use the tomahawk or axe in making his examination in the forest.

  ― 321 ―

As I base my classification on that of Mueller's of 1859, it may be a convenience at the outset to eliminate the smaller species (Mallees or Marlocks), partly because they form a natural group, and partly because they are not classified according to their barks. Nor are their timbers classified in practice as it is. They may, for the most part, be looked upon as depauperate Gums. I will make a few preliminary remarks on size, and, by the elimination spoken of, we shall be in a position to more conveniently study the remaining species.

Descriptions of Barks necessarily tentative.—In describing the general appearance of the trees and their barks, I have, as frequently as possible, stood in front of what I considered average trees, and have written the descriptions on the spot. But these descriptions have been done at different times. Further, some of the descriptions have been written by different hands, some of them have been written at considerable intervals of time, while some are short and some are long. As a result, the terms employed for the same object vary with the talent and the experience of the authors as descriptive writers. It becomes, therefore, a matter of careful research to standardise these descriptions, and I can do no more than hope that the beginning I have made may be found useful.

Following is my proposed classification:—

O. Mallees (or Marlocks).

(To be eliminated from the general bark, &c., classification, as a matter of convenience. I list them below as True Mallees, False Mallees, and Marlocks.)

  • 1. Leiophloiœ (Smooth-barks or Gums).

I propose the following provisional sections:—

  • A. Shaft-like or columnar.
  • (a) Pale timbers.
  • (b) Red timbers.
  • B. More or less erect in habit, but not shaft-like.
  • (a) Pale timbers.
  • (b) Red timbers.
  • (c) Brown timbers.
  • C. Scrambling in habit.
  • (a) Pale timbers.
  • (b) Dark-coloured timbers, red to reddish-brown.
  • D. Western Australian Blackbutts.
  • E. Gimlet Gums.
  • F. Grey and Spotted Gums.

  ― 322 ―
  • 2. Hemiphloiœ (Half-barks).
  • (a) Renantheræ, with pale timbers. Including eastern Peppermints, also Blackbutts and Mountain Ash.
  • (b) Boxes (timbers pale).
  • (c) Timbers reddish-brown.
  • (d) Western Australian species (a provisional group).
  • 3. Rhytiphloiœ (Whole-barks, in contradistinction to the Hemiphloiæ).
  • (a) Pale timbers.
  • (b) Red timbers (Mahoganies in part).
  • 4. Pachyphloiœ (Stringybarks), including a small group of dwarf species.
  • 5. Schizophloiœ (Ironbarks), also (a) Ironbark-Boxes, an intermediate group.
  • 6. Lepidophloiœ (with lamellar or uniformly flaky barks—the Bloodwoods).
  • (a) Dark-barked and with red timber.
  • (b) Yellow-jackets, with pale timber.
  • (c) An intermediate small group (including E. calophylla), with pale timber.
  • (d) Eudesmiæ (excluding the Marlocks).
  • (e) Tessellatæ (those with tesseræ on the lower part of the trunk, e.g., E. tessellaris.
  • (f) Angophoroideæ (species, e.g., E. clavigera, very closely allied to Angophora).

O. Mallees, Marlocks, and other small species.

The vast majority of Eucalypts will be found to be under 150 feet in height, while in the interior districts a tree of 100 feet is accounted a large one. Some of the largest trees have been referred to at Part XLVIII, p. 254.

The smallest species are mostly included under the Mallees (Marlocks). While it is obviously simple to record those which are, in the present state of our knowledge, largest and smallest, the puzzle is to classify the intermediate forms. This is the difficulty that so frequently confronts us in Eucalyptus—we have ascertained A and Z (or think we have), but what are we to do with B to Y. Even in Mallees and Marlocks we have this problem of intermediates.

A large number of species may be described as small—Mallees and Marlocks—the smaller ones usually spindly and with the bark smooth, but exhibiting the usual exfoliation which result in the falling-off of ribbons, or of flakes of old, hard bark. The majority of them naturally occur in “hard” conditions, and are assumed to be old or disappearing forms, struggling in a difficult environment.

  ― 323 ―

We must bear in mind that we know so little about some species that we cannot say whether we shall later find that they attain a very much larger size. Dwarf species only exceptionally attain the dignity of a tree from which timber may be cut. In a few cases (e.g., E. redunca) the typical form is a shrub, while a variety assumes tree-form.

Mueller touched on the difficulty in the following passage: “The characters of shrubby Eucalypts proving generally less constant than those of the tall timber-trees of this genus.” (“Eucalyptographia,” under E. occidentalis).

Some Mallees, when they attain their best development, grow into medium-sized trees, 30–40 feet being common, and a height of 50 feet not being rare, while the very exceptional height of 70 feet (measured) in the case of E. gracilis is worthy of special note, and, perhaps later, of special classification. In other words, we must bear in mind that the usual idea of a Mallee being a shrub may require a good deal of modification.

When the plant consists of a number of small stems close together it goes by the name of “Whipstick Mallee.”

Some general notes on Mallee will be found in Part IV, pp. 94, 98, of the present work. For a valuable paper on the development of Mallees, see Fletcher and Musson in Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., xliii, 199 (1918), which is abstracted in the present work, Part XLIX, p. 284.

There is a certain amount of convenience in a geographical classification of Mallees, thus we have:—

a. True Mallees.

True Mallees (as originally defined), with large bulbous root-stocks. Found in regions of comparatively low rainfall, and in plain country.

Speaking generally, it may be said that Mallees are smooth-barked, thin-barked, and bark-bound when young, and later, the outer bark falls off more or less abundantly as ribbons. As development proceeds the rough bark on the lower part of the trunk becomes less ribbony, and more or less flaky and hard, till at length—at maturity, and when there is no necessity for the fall of the bark—the butt becomes rough-barked, with a dark-coloured, hard-flaky, sub-fibrous exterior.

I shall show, under Gums, that the state of having a smooth bark is an ideal, and it will be later proved that all groups of barks have exceptions more or less important. Mallees do not escape this general law. For example, E. Camfieldi and E. ligustrina, which might by some be classed with the Mallees, seem better placed under the Stringybarks.

One must bear in mind that the typical Mallee, with its bulbous root-stock and many comparatively thin stems, often arranged in a more or less circular manner, is a condition arrived at as the result of environment, but the same species may be single-stemmed and like an ordinary tree in appearance. This dimorphous character has given difficulty to many people, who have thought that the two forms represented different species.

  ― 324 ―

Following is a provisional list:—

E. Bakeri Maiden.

E. Behriana F.v.M.

E. calycogona Turcz.

E. cneorifolia DC.

E. dumosa A. Cunn.

E. fruticetorum F.v.M.

E. Gillii Maiden.

E. gracilis F.v.M.

E. incrassata Labill.

E. leptophylla F.v.M. (to be dealt with in a subsequent Part).

E. Morrisii R. T. Baker.

E. oleosa F.v.M.

E. uncinata Turcz.

E. Thozetiana F.v.M. (For a note on this tree, see Section B. of Gums).

E. viridis R. T. Baker (acacioides A. Cunn.).

E. BAKERI Maiden.

A large shrub, or small pendulous, willow-like tree, attaining a height of 30–50 feet, forming a single stem, or stooling from the ground. Bark dark, box-like, or hard and scaly on trunk, branches smooth. Timber hard and heavy, deep red when freshly cut, drying browner.


A tall shrub or small tree up to 20–30 feet and more, with one or two dozen stems of 3 to 4 inches in diameter springing from one root. The bark always smooth and commonly of a dark, oily-looking green.


Up to 25 or 30 feet, with a smooth bark. At Wedderburn (Victoria), 25–30 feet, usually with only one stem, and a smooth greyish bark very similar in colour to E. fruticetorum (F. W. Wakefield). Speaking of Pinnaroo, Mr. J. M. Black describes this Mallee as 16 to over 30 feet high and 20–24 inches in diameter in cases where the trees have been cut down. Inner bark smooth and pale grey, outer bark brown, rough and peeling. Near the Ninety-mile Desert it flowers as a Whipstick Mallee under 10 feet high.


A Mallee confined to Kangaroo Island, South Australia, where it is known as “Narrow-leaf.” In some places they may be a foot in diameter, but usually the trunks are only as thick as a man's arm, and forming an impenetrable scrub. Where it forms a single stem, it may attain a height of 40 feet with a white stem with a more or less box-scaly roughness (see J.H.M. in Journ. Roy. Soc. S.A., xxxii, 279).

  ― 325 ―

E. DUMOSA A. Cunn.

“White Mallee.” The type is a large shrub or small tree of 20–40 feet, the clumps having about 6–8 stems of equal size, and the whole plant more or less glaucous in appearance. The outer bark of a scaly nature and of a dark-brown colour, falling off in irregular-shaped patches, the smooth bark being of a bluish-white or even straw colour, but these colours vary. Because of this paleness the species is often known as “White Mallee.”


“Blue Mallee.” A glaucous Mallee, with quadrangular branchlets, with willowy, light-coloured stems.

E. GILLII Maiden.

A glaucous Mallee, attaining a height of 20 feet, the stems and branches rather crooked.


“White Mallee.” A graceful species of 10–20 feet in a type locality. Sometimes, as with other Mallees, it becomes a medium-sized tree, with only one stem. In its wide range it is often found up to 40 feet in height, and exceptionally (as Kong Mallee see Part XXXIX, p. 265) it may attain the exceptional height of 70 feet (measured). The timber is brown. The above remarks apply to South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales, but in Western Australia it becomes a Blackbutt; see Part LI.


We cannot speak definitely about the bark of the typical species until the identity of the species is cleared up. See Part XXXVIII, p. 223.

Variety angulosa Schauer. This is by far the most abundant form of incrassata in the south coastal districts of Western and South Australia. In sheltered places near the sea it forms large shrubs or small trees, shapely, with dense foliage forming an agreeable shade, and a graceful ornament to the beach. On the Kalgan Plains, W.A., it is the tallest of the Mallees (say 15 feet), with fleshy, large leaves. In such situations, which are more exposed, it has smooth, clean stems (say 3 inches) with the leafy branches coming less close to the ground.

E. MORRISII R. T. Baker.

“Grey or Black Mallee.” The bark dirty grey and slightly roughened. As growth proceeds we have ribbons, more or less, and eventually blackish, half-flaky bark at the butt. The short butts may be up to nearly 2 feet in diameter. I have seen it nearly 40 feet high, though it is usually only about half that size.


“Red Mallee.” The type was described (from South Australia) as a shrub of the height of a man, but it may attain the usual size of Mallees, e.g., 30 or 40 feet or more. It has roughish bark at the butt, but the upper portion and the branches are smooth.

  ― 326 ―


A slender Mallee, usually not exceeding 10 feet in height, confined to coastal south-western Australia.

E. VIRIDIS R. T. Baker (acacioides A. Cunn.).

A tall, spindly shrub or slender small tree, attaining a height of 20–30 feet. Bark smooth, a little hard, scaly bark at butt.

b. False Mallees.

False Mallees, or Mallee-like shrubs, with bulbous root-stocks reduced in size or absent. Found in regions of comparatively high rainfall, in rocky coastal districts and tablelands (of New South Wales) sometimes ascending to a considerable elevation.

There is no strict line of demarcation between these and the generally recognised Mallees.

E. apiculata Baker and Smith.

E. approximans Maiden.

E. Baeuerlenii F.v.M.

E. coccifera Hook., f.

E. diversifolia Bonpl.

E. Moorei Maiden and Cambage.

E. Kybeanensis Maiden and Cambage.

E. neglecta Maiden.

E. nitida Hook., f.

E. obtusiflora DC.

E. parvifolia Cambage.

E. pulverulenta Sims.

E. pumila Cambage.

E. stricta Sieb.

E. urnigera Hook., f.

E. vernicosa Hook., f.

E. virgata Sieb.

E. APICULATA Baker and Smith.

A shrub of 6–8 feet, forming a scrubby growth.


A Mallee-like plant of 4–10 feet high.


Few or many stemmed; attaining a height of 40 feet, up to 15 inches in diameter; bark smooth, hide-bound, brownish. Timber pale-coloured, hard.

E. COCCIFERA Hook., f.

Quite a small tree (under 20 feet in height) with a smooth, white bark, but much smaller on the exposed tops of mountains.

  ― 327 ―


A Mallee-like shrub or small tree, up to 20 feet high. Has a smooth bark with ribbons.

E. KYBEANENSIS Maiden and Cambage.

A Mallee of 6–10 feet, with smooth, greenish stems 1½ inches in diameter.

E. MOOREI Maiden and Cambage.

An erect, rather slender, shrub of up to 10 or 13 feet in height, with a stem-diameter of 2 to 4 inches. It forms dense masses of small area, reminding one somewhat of a Whipstick Mallee, but lacking the root-stockiness of a Mallee. About 1 mile west of Hartley Vale Railway Station, Mr. W. F. Blakely (in June) found it from 6–20 feet, when highest forming nice straight poles, with a diameter of 5–6 inches. Bark at base dark and rough, changing to smooth, and dark green to glaucous in colour.


A tree of small size, sometimes described as scraggy when old, not exceeding 20 feet in height. Smooth and ribbony. Grows in clumps forming a dense thicket, the stems appearing “to be independent saplings and not suckers from a common crown.”

E. NITIDA Hook., f.

Shrubs or small stunted trees, with a little scaly or ribbony bark at butt. “At Currie's River, Tasmania, it formed low bushes, about 5 feet high, but occasionally a few feet higher. It grew in the poor sandy land near the sea.” (Gunn.)

At the same time, the type is described (see Part XXXVIII, p. 235) as “a fairly tall tree with hanging branchlets.” So far as I understand this species, it is a tall shrub or small tree, but it requires further investigation.


An erect shrub or small tree, smooth or with a little ribbony bark. It forms bushes, with branches smooth and glaucous, the young bark greenish or bluish, peeling off in ribbons.


A small, umbrageous tree, reaching 20–30 feet, rarely 40 feet, with a stem-diameter of up to 18 inches. Bark smooth, dull grey. This species affords one of the difficulties of grouping by Habit.


A scraggy, spindly, tall shrub or small tree, 15 feet high, and up to 3 inches in diameter. Has a long, weak trunk, of pretty uniform diameter, say 2 inches on the average; quite prostrate or quite erect, and also spreading and rambling. It is smooth-barked, with short ribbons (Mount Blaxland is the type). At Apsley, near Bathurst, the size is greater, from 10–30 feet, with a diameter of 3 inches. Wood pale-coloured and tough.

E. PUMILA Cambage.

A tall shrub of many separate stems, reaching 15–20 feet, with a stem diameter of 2–3 inches.

  ― 328 ―


The Scrubby Gum of the Blue Mountains and other places, a dwarf Gum, forming an almost impenetrable scrub of 6–15 feet, the thin, smooth, bark falling off in strips. I have, however, seen it larger—up to nearly 30 feet—where there is good soil and moisture, e.g., in the taluses of mountains.

E. URNIGERA Hook., f.

A small tree of 15–20 feet, with spreading branches and a smooth bark, usually blotched with red or brown.

E. VERNICOSA Hook., f.

“An erect shrub 4–6, rarely 12–20. Bark smooth.” (Rodway).


A straggling, tall, shrub or small tree, rarely exceeding a height of 15 to 20 feet or a stem-diameter of 3 inches. More or less glaucous, the stems smooth.

(c) Marlocks.

Marlock is the Western Australian equivalent of Mallee, and, like it, is a term somewhat loosely used. It includes all Gum-scrub, i.e., dwarf species or individuals, on a sand-plain. Maalock is an old spelling, and means a thicket more or less dense. It may include the true Mallee of the more eastern States, i.e., a dwarf Eucalypt with a thickened stocky stem more or less embedded in the light sandy soil. There are various qualifying adjectives, such as Black, White. A few species have their own special names, e.g., Moort (for E. platypus) in addition to the general one of Marlock, which is mostly in use in the southern part of the State.

E. angustissima F.v.M.  E. leptopoda Benth. 
E. annulata Benth.  E. macrandra F.v.M. 
E. buprestium F.v.M.  E. macrocarpa Hook. 
E. cœsia Benth.  E. micranthera F.v.M. 
E. cornuta Labill (a note).  E. occidentalis Endl. (a note). 
E. decurva F.v.M.  E. odontocarpa F.v.M. 
E. diptera Andrews.  E. Oldfieldii F.v.M. 
E. doratoxylon F.v.M.  E. orbifolia F.v.M. 
E. Ebbanoensis Maiden.  E. pachyloma Benth. 
E. eremophila Maiden.  E. pachyphylla F.v.M. 
E. erythronema Turcz.  E. Pimpiniana Maiden. 
E. erythrocorys F.v.M.  E. platypus Hook. 
E. eudesmioides F.v.M.  E. Preissiana Schau. 
E. Ewartiana Maiden.  E. pyriformis Turcz. 
E. falcata Turcz.  E. Sheathiana Maiden. 
E. Forrestiana Diels.  E. spathulata Hook. 
E. goniantha Turcz.  E. Stowardi Maiden. 
E. grossa F.v.M.  E. tetragona F.v.M. 
E. Jutsoni Maiden.  E. tetraptera Turcz. 
E. Kruseana F.v.M.  E. Websteriana Maiden. 
E. Lehmanni Preiss. 

  ― 329 ―


A bushy shrub of 5 feet; a very imperfectly-known species.


A tall shrub with a smooth bark. Others have described it from 7–12 feet, while Diels and Pritzel have seen it from 6 to 32 feet, with an ash-coloured smooth bark. It is evidently one of those species which, like the eastern Mallees, may develop into a fairly large size.


A tall shrub, sometimes up to 15 or 20 feet, with a Mallee habit; smooth stems.

E. CÆSIA Benth.

A Mallee, about 12 feet high, bark smooth, tough, stripping in long lengths.

E. CORNUTA Labill.

The Yate. Sometimes forms Marlock thickets.


A tall, spindly, Mallee-like shrub of 10–15 feet, but may attain a larger size. The upper parts of the branches glaucous, the branchlets red.

E. DIPTERA Andrews.

A slender tree of 10–20 feet.


Usually a shrub or small tree, but Mueller quotes an authority that its trunk may appear 3 feet in diameter. I have not been able to obtain confirmation of this.


It attains a height of 30 feet, with a diameter of 9 inches; bark smooth.


A shrub or medium-sized tree, with smooth, scaly bark.


Stems white, smooth, a small shrub, or attaining a height of 30 feet.


“Shrub 4–12 feet with a smooth bark; called also a White Gum, a smooth-barked, straggling tree of 20 feet. As a rule seen as a bush. Branchlets brown.”

Stated to reach “a height of 50–80 feet in Central Australia, the trunk silver-grey in colour and very shiny, except the butt, where it is covered with a paper-like bark which peels off in long, yellow-brown scales.” (Prof. Baldwin Spencer.) See Part XLVI, p. 167.

It is a species that deserves further enquiry, as it is apparently one of the dimorphic species—a small Mallee or a big tree, according to environment.

  ― 330 ―


A tall shrub or small tree up to 20–30 feet, a crooked trunk of 10 feet, diameter 1 foot, with very light grey, smooth bark.

Mr. E. A. le Souef, of South Perth, says:—“I asked my collector about its habit. He says that where it is swept by fire it is a Mallee, having a large woody stock root, and several thin stems from it, but where fire never reaches it it grows into the ordinary tree from 12 to 15 feet in height.


Many stemmed, 10–15 or 20 feet high. The stems 3 inches in diameter. The bark is peculiar, falling off in narrow, longitudinal pieces, giving it a striped appearance, rare in Eucalyptus.


A Mallee of 10–15 feet, with very slender stems. Of somewhat drooping habit.


A shrub of 5–10 feet, never divaricate.


Unknown, but probably a shrub or small tree.


A shrub of 3–9 feet, with broadly spreading branches.

E. JUTSONI Maiden.

A small, thin-stemmed, branching-from-the-root Gum, about 6–8 feet high on the average.


A straggling shrub, about 8 feet high.


A shrub, forming a Marlock growth, or a small tree up to 30 feet high, and up to 12 inches in diameter.


A thin, wiry, rather erect tall shrub or small spindly tree, with several stems together.


A shrub or small tree with a smooth bark.


A stout shrub of 6–10 feet, usually more or less mealy-white.

Up to 14 feet (W. D. Campbell). It forms copses, hard to get through, usually very crooked in its growth. Stems thin, long. The bark smooth and varies from pale to dark grey.


A shrub of 6 to 10 feet with a smooth bark.

  ― 331 ―


The Yate. Often forms Marlock thickets.


Shrub of 8–10 feet. A Mallee.


A stiff shrub of 8 or 10 feet, with many thin stems close together, forming an impenetrable scrub, but not a true Mallee.


A shrub of 5 feet.


A spindly, sand-plain Gum, not known to attain tree size.


A tall shrub otherwise described as “bush 8–12 feet high” and “dense bushes, 10–15 feet high.”


A shrub of 3–5 feet, but very little is known about it.


A tree attaining 30 feet, with a smooth bark. Forms gregarious small trees erect in habit, with smooth bark, a little ribbony at butt. It is specifically referred to as Marlock by Mueller and Morrison, but it varies in size.


It forms spindly shrubs up to 10 feet; so far as I saw, most of them smaller. Mueller says it attains a height of 15 feet.


A slender shrub, with long weak stems.


A slender young tree, probably a Marlock.


A shrub of 6–8 feet or rather more. In the form known as Swamp Mallet, and which is believed to be specifically identical, it is a tree from 20–30 feet.


“A shrubby Mallee.”


“A low scrubby shrub, densely covered with a white meal, to a small tree of 20–25 feet.” A “White Marlock.”


A shrub or small tree (rarely above 10 feet), the branches nearly terete or very prominently four-angled, almost winged.


A shrub of 6 or 10 feet.