no previous

  ― 1 ―

1. A Critical Revision of the Genus Eucalyptus.

A.—Variation in the Genus.

THE genus Eucalyptus is such a large one that a number of schemes have been submitted for dividing it into sections with a view of associating those closely allied, or for arriving at the name of a species with facility. These schemes will be referred to in the bibliography, and I now propose to review each character, from timber to another, to see if any satisfactory scheme can be evolved. In the Proc. Aust. Assoc. for Adv. of Science, Sydney Meeting, 1898, Professor Tatenote and Mr. Luehmannnote simultaneously gave prominence to the use of the fruit for purposes of classification. Both papers take cognizance of other characters as well. Both are the work of men who know the genus, and are valuable contributions to knowledge.

Habit.—Tate defines two habits of growth, viz:—Trees, and shrubby, stocky trees, to which he applies the vernacular names of gums and mallees, names well understood in Australia. He points out that in young plants of the genus there is a large inflation of the base of the stem, either at the surface or just below the surface of the soil. In gums (E. rostrata, leucoxylon, viminalis, &c.) this is eventually outgrown; but in the mallees (incrassata, uncinata, &c.) it persists and increases in size proportionately with the development of the branches which are emitted from it—in the mallee this rudely globose bole is partly subterranean. “The umbrella-like disposition of the foliage of the taller mallees may be largely incidental to overcrowding, though it would seem to be an inherited character, as it is fairly pronounced in them when they are distinctly separated from one another.” This classification is chiefly of practical use in Professor Tate's own State (South Australia) and in Western Australia.

It is, however, very difficult to group the species according to habit. Some are dwarf in their typical forms, but under different circumstances they take on a larger growth. Then, speaking generally, such species as are found in damp situations in good soil are umbrageous trees; such, for example, are stellulaat, aggregata, Macarthuri, but this character is largely a matter of environment. Then some species, e.g., viminalis, have a more or less drooping habit as a rule, but this species is often nearly erect in less congenial soil. And further, to show variation in habit, we have only to point to the Eucalyptus plantations of California and the South of France, where the species are cultivated almost out of recognition.

  ― 2 ―

Bark.—Mueller (Journ. Linn. Soc., iii, 99, 1858) arranged the genus in the following six groups in respect to their barks. With the additional information we have obtained since Mueller's paper was published, we are able to recast his list of examples. It will be found, however, that no two botanists agree as to the sections in which to place some of the species, and as further field-knowledge is available and we know more about the variation of the bark in the same species, the same authority modifies his own lists. See Woolls, “On the classification of the Eucalypts” (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (2), vi, 60).

“i. Leiophloiœ.—Cortex post delapsum strati supremi undique laevis. (Vulgo, flooded gum trees, white gum trees, blue gum trees partim, red gum trees partim, yarra trees.)”

Smooth barks (“gums” we call them).—Examples are—E. hœmastoma, tereticornis, rostrata, leucoxylon, viminalis, Gunnii, maculata, latifolia, aspera, stellulata, coriacea, saligna, Behriana, punctata, stricta, fasciculosa.

“ii. Hemiphloiœ.—Cortex in trunci parte inferiore persistens rugosus et rimosus, in parte superiore ramisque delapsu strati superioris laevigatus. (Vulgo, Moreton Bay ash, blackbutted gum tree, box trees partim.)”

Half barks, the barks of the lower part of the trunk persistent and the upper part smooth. Examples are—E. hemiphloia, pilularis, bicolor, longifolia, melliodora, amygdalina, dives. The Moreton Bay Ash (tesselaris) is better in section iii or vi.

“iii. Rhytiphloiœ.—Cortex ubique persistens rugosus et rimosus intus solidus. (Vulgo, bloodwood trees, box trees partim, peppermint trees partim.)”

With wrinkled persistent bark, rather solid. This is an unsatisfactory group, including heterogenous barks. Mueller intended it to include the bloodwoods (corymbosa, eximia, trachyphloia), also bicolor (which is better in ii) and E. microtheca, leptophleba, ferruginea. Odorata, robusta, botryoides may be added, and also Stuartiana, pulverulenta, microcorys, acmenioides, resinifera, polyanthema, populifolia, piperita.

Nos. ii and iii run into each other, and both of them into No. iv.

  ― 3 ―

“iv. Pachyphloiœ.—Cortex ubique persistens rugosus intus fibrosus. (Vulgo, stringybark trees.)”

“Stringybarks,” with persistent, fibrous barks. A good natural group, including eugenioides, capitellata, macrorrhyncha, obliqua, pilularis var. Muelleriana, tetrodonta.

“v. Schizophloiœ.—Cortex ubique persistens profunde sulcatus intus solidus. (Vulgo, ironbark trees.)”

“Ironbarks,” with hard, deeply-furrowed barks. Perhaps the best of all the groups. Examples—E. siderophloia, paniculata, crebra, sideroxylon, melanophloia.

“vi. Lepidophloiœ.—Cortex saltem in trunco persistens lamellaris friabilis. (Vulgo, melaleuca gum trees, mica trees.)”note

With persistent bark on the trunk only, and forming scaly separate pieces. Mueller's examples are miniata (aurantiaca), phœnicea, peltata (melissiodora), to which I would add tesselaris. The Rev. Dr. Woolls (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vi, 709) ignores section vi, and it certainly cannot be separately maintained as a section.

The cortical classification separates trees that are closely allied, e.g., hemiphloia and Baueriana, the first being a half bark, and the latter having rough bark to the branchlets. Similarly E. pilularis in its normal form has smooth branchlets, while its variety Muelleriana has rough branchlets. It places in juxtaposition those that are not closely related, as will be observed from the examples given under each section. Prominent examples are:—

  • (a) E. paniculata, Sm., and E. fasciculosa, F.v.M.; and
  • (b) E. sideroxylon, A. Cunn., and E. leucoxylon, F.v.M., respectively, nearly alike in leaves, flowers, and fruits, but utterly dissimilar in bark and wood.

Absolute anomalies as regards barks are those of ironbark for E. stellulata, Sieberiana, and viminalis;note a box-like bark for E. tereticornis, and observers will note many other anomalies within their own experience. At the same time, in careful hands, the bark is the most useful character the forester can employ.

Timber.—While the character of a timber is a matter of economic importance, its use in botanical diagnosis is very often overlooked. For many years I have insisted on the examination of the timber wherever possible, and recognition of this character has undoubtedly led to a better understanding of the genus.

  ― 4 ―

Timbers can be classified in different ways, e.g., according to—

  • (1.) Fissility.—Some are fissile, such as stringybarks (E. eugenioides), &c., Mountain ash (E. Sieberiana), Victorian blackbutt (E. regnans), &c. Others are short in the grain, such as many gums, snapping off like a carrot; while others are tough and interlocked, like boxes and ironbarks.
  • (2.) Colour.—In a lecture delivered in 1891 before the Sydney Architectural Association of New South Wales, I divided many of the Eucalyptus timbers into pale hardwoods, subdividing them into three groups—(a) Hard, interlocked; (b) Fissile; (c) Inferior, such as Gums; which is a useful practical classification. In my “Notes on the Commercial Timbers of New South Wales,” (1895), I submitted the classification—1. Ironbarks. 2. Pale hardwoods. 3. Red hardwoods.

1. Gums.—These timbers are short in the grain; dry to a brown or reddish colour; crack radially in drying; have many gum-veins; and, as a rule, lack durability. Their barks are smooth, and more or less ribbony. Examples—stellulata, coriacea, hœmastoma, viminalis, Gunnii. They connect with the “Boxes” (Bastard), and also with the smooth-barked members of the Jarrah group.

2. Mallees.—Examples—oleosa, Behriana, incrassata. This is a group based on geographical considerations. They are arid country species, and connect the “Gums” and “Red Boxes.”

3. Ironbarks.—These are fully described in my “Notes on the Commercial Timbers of New South Wales.” They consist of—

  • (a) True Ironbarks, viz., paniculata, siderophloia, crebra, sideroxylon.
  • (b) Bastard Ironbarks.—Timbers very similar to ironbarks, but the barks belonging to the “Box” group. They include Boormani and affinis. Melanophloia, and, perhaps, microtheca connect the two groups.

4. Boxes.—These are tough, interlocked timbers, usually with fibrous bark on the trunk, and may be subdivided into—

  • (a) Pale.—Examples—Hemiphloia, melliodora, Bosistoana, Baueriana, populifolia, quadrangulata, Cambagei, goniocalyx, tesselaris, leucoxylon, corynocalyx, globulus.
  • (b) Red.—Examples—bicolor, microtheca, polyanthema, odorata, fasciculosa.

These two groups include some smooth barks or “Gums,” but their timbers are provisionally classified with the “Boxes.”

  • (c) Bastard.—Examples—Stuartiana, pulverulenta, Macarthuri, aggretata. The timber of (c) is inferior, and closely resembles that of the “Gums.”

  ― 5 ―

5. Stringybark Group.—This includes a number of fissile timbers that pass into each other, and may be subdivided as follows:—

  • (a) True Stringybarks.—Examples—eugenioides, macrorrhyncha, capitellata, obliqua, Baileyana.
  • (b) Blackbutts.—Examples—pilularis (which absolutely connects with the Stringybarks through its variety Muelleriana), acmenioides. These are the most valuable timbers of the group.
  • (c) Peppermints.—Examples—amygdalina, regnans, dives, piperita. These timbers have gum-veins, and are altogether inferior in quality.

Allied to these is the—

6. Mountain Ash Group.—Fissile timbers usually pale in colour, and with bark not so fibrous as the preceding. Examples—Sieberiana, Planchoniana, virgata and its varieties, Risdoni, cordata.

7. Tallow-wood and Spotted Gum.—microcorys and maculata (two valuable pale-coloured timbers), sui-generis.

8. Bloodwoods.—These have gum-veins, and are coarse-grained; corymbosa, is red, and eximia and trachyphloia, which are pale, connect with maculata.

9. Jarrah Group.—Containing a number of heterogenous species, and which I name after the best-known member. Some have fibrous barks, others are smooth; but they are all deep-red, durable timbers. Examples—marginata, resinifera, diversicolor, propinqua, punctata, saligna, botryoides, robusta, tereticornis, rostrata, longifolia.

This group connects with the Red Boxes.

The timber of the same species varies a good deal according to the soil and situation, and our knowledge does not yet enable us to discriminate between some timbers not closely allied botanically. In other words, a man who professes to discriminate between all species of timber attempts the impossible.

Exudations.—In Proc. Linn. Soc., N.S.W., 1890, I proposed examination of the kinos as an aid in the diagnosis of eucalypts, and I divided them into three groups according to their behaviour in water or alcohol (spirit).

1. Ruby Group.—Consisting of ruby-coloured kinos, soluble in water and alcohol in all proportions. Examples are—all Renantheræ except microcorys.

2. Gummy Group.—Soluble in water, but insoluble in alcohol owing to the gum they contain. Examples—the ironbarks.

3. Turbid Group.—These kinos are soluble in hot water or hot alcohol, but deposit sediments on cooling. Examples—most of the Parallelantheræ. This

  ― 6 ―
section, however, includes heterogeneous substances, and brings together species little allied. It is doubtless capable of further elaboration, but only serves to accentuate variation in the genus. Some kinos, e.g., E. maculata, are characteristic in appearance, having an olive-green colour; perhaps also that of E. corymbosa, of an intense, almost vermilion colour.

An exudation of less importance is that of Manna. A number of species exude saccharine substances from the leaves and, a very few, from the trunk. The list is being added to slowly, but in most cases the mannas are mere scientific curiosities, and of little value in a scheme of classification. They include viminalis, Gunnii, punctata, pulverulenta, Stuartiana.

Petiole.—D. McAlpine and J. R. Remfrey, in Trans. Roy. Soc. Vict., 1890, published a paper entitled, “The transverse sections of petioles of Eucalypts as aids in the determination of species.” The method of classification on the comparatively few experiments made is ingenious, but of little practical value to us for diagnosis, thousands of sections being required in order to obtain data for generalisation. The paper is, however, of more than ordinary value, and is well worthy of perusal.

Leaf.—(a) Suckers. De Candolle (Prodromus, vol. iii, 1828), classified eucalypts according to the opposite or alternate character of the leaves, a character of special importance at that time, since species were often described from seedlings grown in pots. Field observations have, however, shown that all species have opposite leaves in at least an early stage. In seedlings this is best observed, but in many cases suckers show the character quite as well. In a few species, e.g., gamophylla, this opposite-leaved character persists through life. In many cases the young leaves are broad, and become alternate and narrower, with a lanceolate or falcate shape as maturity is reached. Often these young leaves are glaucous, becoming glabrous as growth proceeds. But there is a group in which the seedling and sucker leaves are narrow. Such species include amygdalina, pilularis, viminalis.

The list is, however, so incomplete that it is impossible at present to use them as a broad basis of classification. For diagnostic purposes, I personally use the shape of the young leaf wherever possible; it is an atavistic character, and data are accumulating by which we shall be in a better position to interpret it.

The difference between suckers and mature leaves has been studied in Europe for many years, although in Eucalyptus the systematic comparison of such forms is of comparatively recent data. It is of practical importance to the Australian forester, for the reason that the occurrence of these young or sucker leaves is so very frequent in the bush.

When a trunk is injured, new shoots make their appearance either from the “eyes” in the stem or from reserve buds of the branches and twigs, or by buds produced from the roots below the ground. The leaves of these shoots, or suckers, as they are called, differ very much from the stems or branches which have been broken, eaten, cut, or frozen off.

  ― 7 ―

Instances of differences are given, and it is added:—

Hundreds of trees and shrubs might be mentioned in which there is a distinct difference between the foliage of the suckers and of the normal branches of the crown. (Kerner and Oliver, ii, 515–6.)

Nor has the description of species and varieties from suckers or seedling leaves been confined to writers on Eucalyptus:—

Gardeners and descriptive botanists have frequently determined and described mutilated plants as other species, hybrids, or varieties. They are neither the one nor the other. The peculiar appearance of the altered members, resulting from mutilation, is exactly determined before hand in each species; it is due to the specific constitution of the species, and thus is part of its being. It is not produced by the external influences which lead to the formation of the varieties, but is brought about by inherent necessity quite independent of the influence of climate and soil. (Op. cit., ii, 518.)

Practically all the researches on the anatomy of Eucalyptus leaves have been made on those of the readily available E. globulus, in which species both sucker and mature leaves are readily available. The most complete research is the masterly paper of G. Briosi.note See also a study by H. Pocklington.note

Then Henslownote says:—

The chief differences between the two forms of leaves I find to be as follows:—In the horizontal leaf the upper epidermis is composed of small cells, and there are no stomata. There is a palisade tissue of one layer of cells, with lax mesophyll below the lower epidermis. This latter has larger cells than the upper, and is provided with stomata. The pendulous leaf is a good deal thicker than the horizontal. Both epidermides are provided with a very dense cuticle, in which the stomata are deep-seated. There are four rows of palisade cells on both sides, with a chlorophyllous mesophyll between them. The petiole is flattened so that the leaf can swing much in the same way as that of the poplar.

A useful paper by Dr. Albert Schneidernote speaks of the sucker (“dorsiventral”) leaves with palisade cells on the upper side and stomata on the under side only. The mature leaves, “isolateral leaves or phyllodes,” take a vertical position with the convex edge directed upward. The epidermis is alike on both sides. It will be observed that his results do not agree with those of Henslow;—evidence of variation. The anatomical characters of the leaves of Eucalyptus offer, however, much room for research. See “Stomata,” p. 8.

(b) Cotyledon leaves.—The shape of the cotyledon leaves we know less about, and data are being collected. The work has been hindered because of the difficulty of obtaining seed from certain interesting forms. Mueller's Eucalyptographia and Lubbock's “A contribution to our knowledge of seedlings,” form the basis of our present available information on the subject.

Other characters of Eucalyptus leaves we require to know more about are their size, texture, and prominence of venation. They are minor characters, and some species present much variation in this respect.

  ― 8 ―

(c) Venation.—Messrs. Baker and Smith, in Proc. Roy. Soc. of N.S.W., 1901, have grouped certain Eucalyptus leaves into sections in regard to the disposition of their veins, pointing out that the oil-content of the leaves can in a measure be gauged from the venation. The suggestion is ingenious; but as the venation is, like other characters, variable within such large limits, the method will only be practically useful in the hands of experts.

(d) Young stems.—Some eucalypts have marked quadrangular stems, e.g., globulus, Maideni, goniocalyx, quadrangulata, tetragona, and many others; but, as a rule, this quadrangular appearance, often well marked at an early stage of growth, passes away as growth proceeds.

(e) Essential oil.—The perfume of Eucalyptus leaves is owing to the presence of an oil. It varies in different species in regard to both character and amount. In young it is commonly more abundant than in mature foliage, the high proportion of resinous matter in the former being, however, a drawback to distillation. In some cases the perfume is not easy to define, but the crushing of the fresh or even dried leaves in the warm hand has been used as a diagnostic character for many years. It affords a rough but ready test, which is always available and really valuable in skilled hands. Incidentally it may be mentioned that some few leaves, e.g., corymbosa, contain a substance allied to caoutchouc in their tissues, especially in their young state.

Some years ago, when Superintendent of Technical Education, I determined to ascertain whether this qualitative test of Eucalyptus odour was capable of leading up to further results. Accordingly I obtained samples of commercial Eucalyptus oils, and also watched their distillation in the country, but found, as a general rule, that the various kinds of leaves were not rigidly kept apart. I therefore resolved, with the advice of Dr. T. L. Bancroft, of Brisbane, and the active co-operation of Mr. Owen Blackett, C.E., of the Technical College, to erect a model still capable of holding large charges of leaves, and to distil only those leaves obtained by my own collector or through agencies which permitted their origin to be precisely checked from a botanical point of view. In this way, and in this way only, could Eucalyptus oils of many species, absolutely true to name, be obtained for research. My transfer to the Botanic Gardens removed me from this domain of botanical technology, and the work thus initiated has been continued and extended by my late assistants, Messrs. Baker and Smith.

(f) Stomata.—Mueller, in Eucalyptographia, under E. pachyphylla and E. phœnicea, has classified some of the eucalypts according to the number and distribution of the stomata. He styles the leaves—

  • 1. Hypogenous, according to the presence of stomata on the under surface only.
  • 2. Heterogenous, according to their presence on both surfaces, but less numerous above than below.

  •   ― 9 ―
  • 3. Isogenous, when they are present on both surfaces, but approximately equal in number above and below. “This almost equal distillation of the stomata coincides with the similarity of the colour of both sides of the leaves.”

This method cannot, however, be used for diagnostic purposes with any degree of certainty, because of the variation in the distribution of stomata even in the same tree.

Galls.—At one time I inclined to the opinion that the shapes of the leaf-galls in Eucalyptus would be a useful character for classification. Mr. W. W. Froggatt, who has of late years been giving special attention to Brachyscelidæ, finds that the same insect frequents so many species that no general grouping of the trees based on their galls can be made.

Inflorescence.—Professor Tate points out that the usual form of inflorescence is an umbel which, by lengthening of the axis, passes to the panicle or corymb. The transition from one to the other is so easy, he goes on to remark, and often exemplified in the same tree, that it is obvious the form of the inflorescence is not reliable as a specific character. Bentham had previously drawn attention to the unsatisfactory character of the arrangement of the inflorescence from the point of view of the systematist. Naudin's grouping (second memoir) of fifty-six species (or reputed species) known to him as growing in the gardens of Provence, is mainly based on the inflorescence, but also depends on the fruits and leaves. It doubtless was of local value, but it is based on characters which present so much variation as to preclude its general application.

Following is an abstract in Gardeners' Chronicle, 7th February, 1891:—

Section I.—Inflorescence in cymes or axillary umbels.

Capsules longer than the calyx tube.

Capsules shorter than the calyx tube.

  • (a) Cymes 3-flowered.
    • Leaves uniform, opposite.
    • Leaves uniform, alternate.
    • Leaves of two shapes.
  • (b) Cymes of 3 to 7 or more flowered. Cymes 7-flowered.
    • Leaves uniform opposite.
    • Leaves of two shapes, opposite at first.
    • Leaves uniform, always alternate.
  • (c) Cymes or umbels, axillary, more than 7-flowered.
    • Leaves uniform.
    • Leaves of two shapes.

Section II.—Flowers in terminal panicles or corymbs.

Flowers.—With reference to individual flowers, there is much variation in the number of flowers in an umbel, and, to a less extent, in the colour of their filaments. The colour in the vast majority of species is white or cream, but in a few species, e.g., leucoxylon, sideroxylon, viminalis, ficifolia, calophylla, pyriformis, it may be

  ― 10 ―
pink also. In some species, e.g., ficifolia, miniata, phœnicea, it may be red, even a vermilion or orange-red. In a few species, e.g., pilularis, the filaments of dried flowers turn red in course of time.

The pedicel is normally rounded, but owing to compression it is very often strap-shaped, as in botryoides, and extreme cases are afforded by obcordata (platypus) and occidentalis.

Flower-bud.—The shape of the operculum was first used as a classification character by Willdenow in his Species Plantarum, 1799. He divided the twelve species then known into two groups—“operculo conico” and “operculo hemisphaerico.” It is undoubtedly a useful character for the purpose, but variable, like everything else about Eucalyptus. E. tereticornis is usually looked upon as a species to be diagnosed by its operculum, but (Bull. Herb. Boissier, 1902, 579), I have shown that this character breaks down completely as between that species and E. rostrata. E. capitellata and E. macrorrhyncha were at one time separated by their opercula, but they pass into each other as regards those organs. As this work progresses it will be obvious how very variable the operculum is. At the same time, it will always remain, in the hands of a judicious observer, one of the most practically useful diagnostic characters we have.

Some species possess a double operculum, or membranous bract, enveloping the whole of the young inflorescence. It was first observed by Robert Brown (see his description of Eudesmia tetragona), but a few years ago it was only recorded from a very few species. In some it is very early deciduous and in others infrequent; but I have observed it in such a large number of species that I am inclined to the opinion that extended research will show that it occurs in all. Brown's and Jussieu's interesting observations on the single and double operculum will be found supplementary to the former's description of Eudesmia tetragona (Bot. App. to Flinders' Voyage).

Anther.—Bentham (Flora Australiensis) first grouped species according to the shape and mode of dehiscence of the anthers. He made five groups, but laid no stress on the importance of the dehiscence on the top on the anther. He, however, alludes (B.Fl. iii, 186) to “truncate” anthers, and at page 189 to the truncate anthers of E. leucoxylon. Mueller, finding that Bentham's five groups could not be separately maintained, reduced them to three, viz.:—

Renantherœ, the anthers large and the cells divergent at the base.

This section mostly includes the stringybarks, although it includes several white gums,—plants otherwise very different.

Porantherœ, the anthers small and opening in pores.

This section mostly includes boxes and some mallees, and includes the silver-leaved ironbark (melanophloia), while E. crebra, which is very closely allied to it, is placed in another section.

  ― 11 ―

Parallelantherœ, the cells parallel, and the longitudinal slits consequently parallel.

This section comprises the remainder of the eucalypts, and a most heterogeneous and extensive collection they are, variable in many ways.

As a matter of fact, the anthers refuse to be rigidly marshalled into sections. They sometimes display such variation of divergence of shape of cell, size, and mode of dehiscence, that classification on the anthers alone becomes a matter of difficulty.

In the old collections, the difficulty is enhanced through the partiality of insects for these organs; nevertheless, examination of the anthers is always carried out by me, and it is a most useful character.

Pollen-grains.—Mueller (Eucalyptographia, under E. erythrocorys) has shown that the size of pollen-grains varies in different species, but we require very many more measurements than are available, to be in a position to place any interpretation upon the results. The shape of the pollen-grains also varies, but we have few data on the subject.

Calyx.—The calyx, “cupula” of De Candolle and other botanists, the “hypanthium” of Schauer, is no longer used for classification purposes, having been proved to be so utterly variable. De Candolle (and his translator, G. Don) offered a classification of the eucalypts consisting of opposite or alternate leaves combined with a comparison of the size of operculum with cupula.

Fruit.—While many botanists have more or less used the fruit as a diagnostic character in Eucalyptus, and it is undoubtedly the best character we have, it is due to Professor Tate to say that (op. cit.) he was the first to submit a scheme for classification of the genus based on the fruits alone. He deals with (a) shape; (b) external sculpture and ornament; (c) capsular teeth; (d) capsule cells; (e) fertile seeds. But examination of Professor Tate's scheme shows (through no fault of his) how very imperfect and full of exceptions it is. Taking item by item we find the shape in each species to vary within wide limits. The truth of this will be observed in contemplation even of the single species, E. pilularis, dealt with in this part. Personally, I very largely use the fruit (unripe fruits may be very misleading) for diagnostic purposes; but in many cases it must be carefully used, for it displays an enormous amount of variation. This much is proved, and I go further and say that some fruits only appear to have an approximately constant shape because we have so much to learn in regard to the range of the species and consequent possibilities of variation. Of course, I at once admit the fact that some species are “stronger” than others.

To sum up, for herbarium work the anthers and fruits are the best characters to go by; for the scientific forester, the bark and the timber; but all characters display a puzzling amount of variation.

  ― 12 ―

B.—Doubtful Species.

THE following list includes doubtful species and perhaps some nomina nuda. Some of them are probably indeterminable, and I trust that further inquiry will be made into them. It is quite possible that some of these so-called species of Eucalyptus may prove to belong to other Myrtaceous genera.

1. E. alata, Hort. Ex G. Don in Loud. Hort. Brit., p. 198 (1830). New Holland, 1816.

I cannot trace a description.

2. E. albicans, F.v.M. The seedlings are described in Fragm., vii, 42, in the following words:—“Caulis laevis, fere teres; folia rigidula, sparsa, brevipetiolata, cordato-v. orbiculato-ovata, acutiuscula, 1½–2½? longa, 1?–2? lata.”

I cannot ascertain where the species itself was described.

3. E. albicaulis, Hort. Ex G. Don in Loud. Hort. Brit., p. 198 (1830). New Holland, 1810.

Does not appear to have been described.

4. E. alpina, Hort. “Native of Mt. Wellington, V.D.L.” (Tasmania). Loudon's “Trees and Shrubs of Britain,” p. 2567 (vol. iv.).

5. E. cotinifolia, Lodd. Ex G. Don in Loud. Hort. Brit., p. 198 (1830).

I cannot trace a description.

6. E. curvula, Sieb. “Operculo conico, pedunculis sub-3 floris incrassatis compressis divaricatis, foliis inaequaliter oblongo-lanceolatis acutis.” (Spreng. Syst., iv, Cur. Post. 195.) “The short diagnosis equally applicable to several species.” (Benth.)

7. E. deglupta, Blume. Following is the original description:—

“207. Eucalyptus deglupta, Bl., ramulis compresso-tetragonis marginatis; foliis sparsis (plerumque alternis) breviter petiolatis ovato-lanceolatis acuminatis basi acutiusculis coriaceis glabris penninerviis subtus tenuissime reticulatis.—Populus? deglubata, Herb. Rwdt.—Arbor excelsa, corticem resinosum aromaticum per magnas laminas delibrans; ramulis nonnihil flexuosis, siccis obscure rubiginosis, pruinosis, glanduloso-punctatis, glabris. Folia alterna v. passim opposita, patentia, petiolis 3-5 lin. longis instructa, 4½-7 poll. longa,

  ― 13 ―
1¾–2? poll. lata, longe acuminata, sicca supra obscure fusca, subtus flavofuscescentia et nervo medio venisque prominentibus ramulis concoloribus.—In sylvis montanis Celebes.” (Blume, Mus. Bat. Lugd. Bat., vol. i, p. 83, 1849.)

It was therefore, as Bentham states (Journ. Linn. Soc., x, 143), described from a Celebes specimen in leaf only, which Blume found in Reinwardt's collection under the doubtful name of Populus? deglubata.

Following is Reinwardt's amplified account of the supposed species:—

“103. E.? deglupta, Bl. Ramulis compresso-tetragonis foliis ovato-oblongis, acuminatis, integerrimis, glaberrimis, coriaceis, petiolo et nervis primariis flavis, graveolentibus, pellucido-punctatis.” Insula Celebes sec. Reinwardtii sched. mss. E. deglupta, Bl., Mus. Bot., i, p. 83. Miq. flor. ind., p. 398.

An revera Eucalyptus? Affirmare certo non audeo. Reinwardtii schedulae herbarii haec habent adscripta:—

“1516. Populus deglubata (dein); Eucalyptus deglubata, Bl. Sylvae Celebicae prope Pogowat., m., Sept., 1821.”

“1516. Habitat in sylvis insulæ Celebes, prope flumina Pogowat., Taludujunam, etc. Tambuli-lato incolis Celebicis dicitur. Arbor Populi instar balsamea.”

In relatione itineris Reinwardtii in insula Celebe haec de hac arbore adnotata lego. “Die veneris, qui erat duode-trigesimus, m., Sept., 1821., Pogowattam reliqui, iter facturus in loca ubi aurum colligitur, nempe versus Taludujunam. Inter alias arbores, quas vidi, una erat species trunco excelso, crasso instructa atque ad basin expansionibus laminaribus undique se expandens, vulgo epidermide destituta, glaberrima et versicolor quod superficiem attinet. Horum truncorum unum securi percutere jussi et visa mihi est haec arbor esse populi species, cujus magna est cum Populo balsamea analogia, tum quod attinet folia, tum vero luxuriem incrementi ramorum, flavicantem colorem petiolorum, ruborem ramorum et foliorum novellorum, sed maxime etiam propter odorem balsamicum quem folia juniora, ubi fricantur, spargunt.”

Haec in sylvis Celebicis notavit jam beatus Reinwardtius. Quodsi in museo suo Lugduno-Batavo stirpem Celebicam examinavisset et si lentis augmenti ope eam conspexisset, nullus dubito quin folia pellucido-punctata botanico praestantissimo istiusmodi determinationem protinus dissuasissent.

Cel. Reinwardt de planta illa haec adnovit. “1516. Eucalyptus? deglupta, Bl., Mus. 1, p. 82. Diospyros? P. foliis ovato-oblongis, acuminatis, integerrimis, glaberrimis. Arbor egregia, excelsa, protinus e longinquo dignoscitur trunco erecto, altissimo, deglubato, id est, epidermide plerumque exuto, variegato, flavo-virente, nudo. Cortex ipse tenuis est, intus (quod lignum) alba. Rami habent folia alterna; ramuli ultimi alato-tetragoni sunt. Folia breviter sunt petiolata, crassa, coriacea, petiolis et nervo primario flavis. Foliorum et ramulorum contritorum odor est fortis, balsamicus,—Populi balsamiferae. Hanc ob causam, tum vero etiam propter habitum, ramosque juniores quadrangulares, turiones rubentes resinosos cet., praeterea etiam ob celere incrementum, Populum esse suspicor. Lignum est molle, inutile, populorum ligne simile. Folia optime descripsit Cl. Blume, 1 c., p. 83.” (Reinwardt in de Vriese Pl. Ind. Bat. Or., p. 65.)

  ― 14 ―

8. E. flexilis, Regel.

“Eucalyptus flexilis, Rgl., Ramossima; ramis ramulisque flexuosis, teretibus, verruculosis; foliis alternis, anguste lineari-lanceolatis, plus minus falcatis, integerrimus apice acuminatis v. subuncinatis; umbellis lateralibus, 5-8-floris; operculo conico, capsula tenuiore et eadem circiter duplo longiore.

“Ein neuer Eucalyptus aus Neu-holland. Stark verästelt. Aeste und Aestchen hin und her gebogen, stielrund, mit Wärzchen besetzt. Blätter abwechselnd, schmal linien-lanzettlich, mehr oder weniger sichelförmig, ganzrandig, an der Spitze zugespitzt und zuweilen hakenförmig, 2½-3 Zoll lang, 1/10-? Zoll breit, am Grund in den Blattstiel verschmälert, lederartig, punktirt, einnervig oder ausser dem Mittelnerven mit 2 undeutlichen Seitennerven. Blüthendolden seitenständig, zerstreut oder mehrere zusammengedrängt, 5-8 blumig. Blüthenstiel ¼ Zoll lang, aufrecht, wie die Blüthenstielchen unmerklich zusammengedrückt und mit kleinen Wärzchen besetzt. Blüthenstielchen ungefähr ? Zoll lang; so lang als die Kelchröhre. Der Deckel des Kelches kegelförmig, röthlich, glatt, zweimal so lang als die Kelchröhre und schmäler als dieselbe, Blumen mittelgross, weiss.

“Schöner Kalthausstrauch aus Neu-holland, der, gleich den andern Eucalyptus-Arten, in eine mit Lehm versetzte Heideerde gepflanzt wird.

“Steht dem E. linearis, Dehnh. und E. faloata, Turcz. zunächst. Der erstere derselben unterscheidet sich durch drüsigen Deckel, glatte Aeste und schwach gezähnte Bïtter; der andere durch herabgebogene Blüthenstiele, die viel länger als die Blattstiele, und einen spitzen Deckel, der 4 mal länger als die Kelchröhre. (E.R.)” Regel in Gartenflora, vii, 284 (1858).

Following is a translation:—“A new Eucalyptus from New Holland. Much branched. Branches and branchlets flexuous, terete, covered with warts. Leaves alternate, narrow linear-lanceolate, more or less falcate, the margins entire, the point acuminate and occasionally hooked, 2½ to 3 inches long, -1/10 to ? of an inch broad, the base narrowed into a petiole, of leathery texture, punctate, one-nerved or with two indistinct side-nerves beside the mid-rib. Umbels of flowers lateral, scattered or several crowded together, with 5 to 8 flowers. Peduncle ¼ of an inch long, erect, slightly compressed as well as the pedicels, and covered with small warts. Pedicels about ? of an inch long, as long as the calyx-tube. Operculum conical, reddish, smooth, twice as long as the calyx-tube and narrower. Flowers of middle-size, white.

“A beautiful green-house shrub from New Holland, which, like the other species of Eucalyptus, should be planted in a loamy, heathy soil.

“It is nearest allied to E. linearis, Dehnh., and E. falcata, Turcz. The former is distinguished by its warty operculum, smooth branches, and slightly dentate

  ― 15 ―
leaves; the latter by the peduncles being bent down and much longer than the petioles, and by the pointed operculum, which is 4 times as long as the calyx-tube.”

The juxtaposition of E. linearis and E. falcata shows that the description has probably been based on horticultural considerations.

9. E. glauca, Hoffmg.

“(164.) Eucalyptus glauca. Synonymon absolute nullum reperio. Simillimus est E. piperitae, ut eundem diceres; at vere differre videtur diutius observata foliorum acumine parumper magis producto, substantiâ multo magis rigidâ et coriaceâ (fere ut fol. Lauri nobilis, vel Citri medicae), quod in E.p. non ita.” (Hoffmannsegg, Verz. Pfl. Nachtr., p. 215.)

The name glauca was a favourite both with botanists and horticulturists during the first half of the 19th century, and before it was realised that so many species are glaucous at one period or another of their growth. Following is an instance of its use by Allan Cunningham in his Journal, dated 17th August, 1817, when near Bathurst from the west.

“A species of Eucalyptus (glauca), with conical blunt deciduous operculum and angular umbel of flowers, forming a tree 30 or 40 feet high is frequent, and being now in flower induced me to gather specimens.”

10. E. moluccana, Roxb.

“Lid conical, shorter than the calyx. Panicles lateral, compressed of peduncled heads, of 6 or 7 flowers. Leaves alternate, petioled, lanceolate, entire, firm and polished.

“A native of the Molucca Islands, differing from all the species described by Dr. Smith in the 3rd Vol. of the Transactions of the Linnean Society, in having lateral panicles, composed of heads of 6 or 7 sessile flowers.” (Fl. Ind. ii, 498; Hort. Beng., 92.)

E. moluccana, Roxb., described from a tree in the Calcutta Garden, said to be a native of the Moluccas, but without any record as to when or by whom introduced, and I cannot find that any drawing or specimen has been preserved. Miquel refers it to E. alba, but that is mere guess work, and Roxburgh's short description is quite at variance with that species.” (Benth. Journ. Linn. Soc., x, 142.)

11. E. myrtifolia, Link.

“224. E. myrtifolia. Fol. pet. 3-4? longo, lamina cum pet. 2' longa, 1' lata acuta reticulata, nervis in margine connexis, punctata. Hab. in Australia. Non floruit.” (Link's Enum. Hort. Berol., ii, 30; DC. Prod. iii, 222.)

“Very doubtful.” (Bentham.)

  ― 16 ―

12. E. nervosa, Hoffmg.

“(165.) Eucalyptus nervosa. Foliis oppositis alternatisque petiolatis ovato-oblongisacuminatis uninerviis costato-venosis marginatis subrepandiusculis glabris (4–5' lg., 2–2½' lt.). (Hoffmg. Verz. Pfl. Nachtr., p. 215.)

E. nervosa, F.v.M., is E. obliqua, L'Herit.

13. E. oppositifolia, Desf., “à feuill opposées N. Holl. or.” (Desf. Tabl. Ecol. Bot. Ed. 1, 1804, p. 222.) I cannot trace any ampler description.

14. E. orbicularis, Lodd.

15. E. phillyreoides, Lodd. Both ex G. Don in Loud. Hort. Brit., p. 198 (1830). I cannot trace any description.

16. E. reticulata, Link.

“215. E. reticulata, Fol. lanceolata subfalcata acuminata basi subovata obliqua 6–7' lga., 2' et ultra lata, subtus reticulatim venosa. Hab. in Australia. Nondum floruit. Nervi foliorum subtus non paralleli ut in pr.” (Link's Enum. Hort. Berol., ii, 29; DC. Prod. iii, 222.)

“Very doubtful.” (Bentham.)

17. E. robusta, Hoffmg.

“(433.) Eucalyptus robusta. In Syn. ap. Willd. Sp. Pl. pedunculi compressi quidem dicuntur, et in mea (versus apicem) depressi sunt; at cogitans, plerosque scriptores hediernos terminorum veram acceptionem parum curare, puto, quod et hic compressus pro depresso sumtum sit, et hoc scrupulo (licet per se gravissimo) non morabor. Necesse est se temporibus accommodare. (!) Caeterum et aliae spp. tales habent petiolos. Certitudinem vero definitionis ullius EE. Sp. nemo acquiret, nisi qui opercula viderit, quum pleraeque aliae partes, quibus plantae vulgo distingui solent, vix memoratae sint; quod igitur in plurimis manet ‘seros nepotes.’

“Caulis teres, asper, cum petiolo < 6? lg., nervoque primario supra, purpurascens. Folia coriacea, asperula, ad lentem punctis numerosissimis minutis, secus lucem albidis, contra eam pellucidis, tuberculisque rarioribus majoribus depressi subglabratis.” (Hoffmg. Verz. Pfl. Nachtr., ii, p. 115.)

18. E. Sarassa, Blume.

“209. Eucalyptus Sarassa, Bl. Kaju Sarassa Rumph. Herb. Amb. iii, p. 122. In montanis Moluccarum.” (Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat., i, 84, 1849.)

“ ‘Founded on Rumphius’ incidental mention of the Sarassa tree in the same article (see E. versicolor), all three species, this,—versicolor and deglupta, conjecturally referred by Blume to Eucalyptus on account of their resinous bark, described as detaching itself in particles.” (Benth., Journ. Linn. Soc., x, 143.)

  ― 17 ―

19. E. stenophylla, Link.

“226. E. stenophylla. Fol. linearia basi attenuata obtusiuscula venosa punctata nervis ante marginem connexis. Hab. in Australia. Fol. pet. 4? lgo., lamina 3' lga, 4? lata.” (Link's Enum. Hort. Berol., ii, 30; DC. Prod. iii, 222.)

“Very doubtful.” (Bentham.)

20. E. tuberculata, Parm.

“Parm. h. engh. ex Otto hort. Berol. foliis oppositis sessilibus, amplexicaulibus oblongo-linearibus acutis membranaceis glabris, ramis filiformibus tuberculatis. In Nova-Hollandia v.s. sine fl.” (DC. Prod. iii, 221.)

“Very doubtful.” (Bentham.)

21. E. turbinata, Page.

By name only in Page's Prodromus, 1818. I cannot trace where, if at all, it was described.

22. E. undulata, Hort.

23. E. verrucosa, Hort. Both ex. G. Don in Loud. Hort. Brit. p. 198 (1830).

New Holland, 1820. I cannot trace the description, if any.

24. E. versicolor, Blume.

“(208.) Eucalyptus versicolor, Bl., foliis sparsis v. sub-oppositis breviter petiolatis ovato-lanceolatis acuminatis basi acutiusculis coriaceis glabris penninerviis. Arbor versicolor Rumph. Herb. Amb., iii, p. 122, tab. 53. Ay-alla Amboinensium. Truncus strictus, altissimus; cortice tenui, laevigato, albido, in lamellas secedente excellentem gerens colorem ex rubro luteo et viridi variegatum, qui e longinquo iridis colorem refert. Folia 5 poll. longa, 2 poll. lata, laurina, nervo medio subtus argute prominente, sicca supra nigricantia. In Moluccis.” (Blume, Mus. Bot. Ludg. Bat., vol. i, 1849, p. 84.)

From the Moluccas, taken up from Rumphius' description and rude figure of Arbor versicolor Ay-alla (Herb. Amb., iii, p. 122, t. 80, not t. 53, which is an Eugenia) without flowers or fruit.” (Bentham, Journ. Linn. Soc., x, 143.)

“44. Eucalyptus, nov. sp. ramulis rubellis, etc., e specimine incompleto non describenda. Van Diemen's Land (Stuart n. 19).” Miq. in Ned. Kruidk. Arch., iv, 141 (1856).

I have not been able to see a specimen of Stuart's No. 19 from Tasmania, so that I cannot say if it would be possible to express an opinion as to the species to which it belongs.

  ― 18 ―

C.—Non-Eucalypts described as Eucalypts.

THE following non-Eucalypts have been described or referred to as Eucalyptus.

The following three specimens are from Herb. Vindob:—

1. E. saligna, Hort. Berlin (labelled E. saligna, Sm.).

2. Metrosideros saligna (in 18th century handwriting).

3. Eucalyptus resinifera, Hort. Argentorat et Nessler (sic.) ded. Sept., 1828.

These are all Agonis flexuosa, DC.

The prominent wing on the young branchlets of the var. latifolia is often very faint on the common narrow-leaved form, but always discernible. Bentham omits this character in Fl. Aust.

4. E. microphylla, Willd.

E. microphylla, W.E., 515. Fol. pet, 4? longo, lamina 1' 4? lga. 4? lata, apice falcata, in ramulis conferta parva.” (Link's Enum. Hort. Berol., 225.)

Bentham says this is probably not a Eucalyptus at all. I have seen a specimen (in leaf only) in Herb. Vindob. doubtfully referred to this species, and I agree with him.

5. Sieber's No. 471.

E. hispida, Sm. De la Nouvelle Hollande. No. 471, M. Sieber, 1825,” in Herb. Barbey-Boissier is Angophora cordifolia, Cav.

6. E. hirsuta, Link.

“229. E. hirsuta. Foliis subpetiolatis cordatis obtusis, subtus nervis pubescentibus ramis pedunculisque strigosis. Hab. in Australia. Rami strigis longis densis rubescentibus patentibus. Fol. petiolo brevissimo, lamina 3' lga., 1' 6? lata, juniora pubescentia rubescentia, adultiora subtus tantum in nervis pubescentia discolora. Pedunculi 1' longi triflori, pedicelli 8? longi. Operculum hemisphaericum.” (Link's Enumeratio Hort. Berol., ii, 31.) This is Angophora cordifolia Cav.

  ― 19 ―

7. E. media, Link.

“219. E. media. Fol. pet. 6? longo, lamina lanceolata longe acuminata basi subovata obliqua, lata angustieraque 6-7? lga, 1' 2? ad 2' lata, subtus nervis parallelis. Hab. in Australia, non floruit.” (Enum. Hort. Berol., ii, 30; DC. Prod. iii, 222.)

Specimens in Herb. Vindob. in flower, labelled “Eucalyptus media, Link., Ferd. Bauer, Hb. Bauer” are Angophora lanceolata, Cav.

8. “1846, No. 397. ‘Apple-tree Eucalyptus,’ sub-tropical New Holland. Lieut.-Col. Sir T. L. Mitchell,” Herb. Cant. ex Herb. Lindl. is Angophora intermedia, DC., with lanceolate leaves, also with broad cordate leaves (suckers).

9. E. rubricaulis. “Ramis asperis; ramulis filiformibus; foliis alternis, angustolanceolatis acutis petiolatis. Folia uncias 2-3 longa, lineas 3 lata.” (Desf. Cat. Pl. Hort. Par., ed. 3, 1829, p. 408; also, Dehnh. Cat. Pl. Hort. Camald., ed. 2, p. 20.)

A specimen in leaf only. “Eucalyptus rubricaulis, Desf. ex hort Celsiano, Paris, 1819,” Herb. Vindob. (Herb. Boos.) appears to me not to be a Eucalyptus at all, but probably a Proteacea. Underside of leaves reddish.

  ― 20 ―

D.—Works consulted.

EUCALYPTUS being naturally such a well-defined genus, it has very few generic synonyms. Those that are accounted synonyms are not synonyms of the whole genus, and comprise two only, viz.:—

  • (a) Eudesmia, R.Br., which was the name given to one species (tetragona) looked upon by Brown as connecting Eucalyptus with Angophora.
  • (b) Symphyomyrtus, Schauer., which consists of a form of E. cornuta, Labill., with the walls of the fruits fused together.

Aromadendrum, Anderson (Dr. W. Anderson, the surgeon of Cook's second and third voyages), is a nomen nudum. A second Aromadendrum (Blume) is a genus of Magnoliaceæ.

The vast majority of species are Australian. The known exceptions are two species extending to Timor, and two or three or perhaps one single somewhat doubtful species from the Indian Archipelago; one from New Britain. Species have been described by Naudin from cultivated specimens in the south of France and by Kinney from California, but, in my opinion, they are referable to Australian species.

The botanical literature of Eucalyptus is very scattered. Most of the original descriptions of Robert Brown remain in manuscript, while later work has rendered some of them of only historical value. I do not hesitate to say that the suppression of these descriptions has been a heavy blow to British botanical science, whether this suppression eventually met with the acquiescence of Robert Brown himself or whether he was controlled, in this respect, by superior authority.

The first published attempt to get the increasing number of species of Eucalyptus into order was by Augustin Pyramus de Candolle in his Prodromus, vol. iii, 216 et seq. (1828). The Eucalyptus portion of Don's “General History of Dichlamydeous Plants,” vol. ii, 818 et seq. (1832), is mainly a translation of the preceding.

Then follows the important work of W. P. Walpers, “Repertorium botanices systematicae.” (Leipzig.) Vols. ii and v contain an important series of descriptions of species. This work was continued as “Annales botanices Systematicae,” and vols. i and ii also contain descriptions of Eucalyptus.

  ― 21 ―

In 1866 appeared the third volume of Bentham's Flora Australiensis, which will always remain a classic as far as the genus Eucalyptus is concerned.

From 1879 to 1884 there was published Mueller's Monograph of One Hundred Species of Eucalyptus, which is of the highest value.

There can be no doubt that the time has arrived when a process akin to the consolidation of legal statutes is desirable as regards the National Genus of Australian Plants. The literature is very scattered, and so are the types; a few I have not been able to see, and do not even know where they are. Perhaps European botanists will kindly assist me with specimens or drawings, for which I will make the amplest recompense I can.

Following is a list of herbaria of Eucalyptus examined by me. In a number of cases the collections have very kindly been remitted to me in Sydney:—

Berkeley, University of California, U.S.A.

Berlin, Royal Botanic Garden.

Calcutta, Royal Botanic Garden.

Cambridge, University.

Edinburgh, Royal Botanic Garden.

Geneva, Herbier Barbey-Boissier.

Geneva, Herbier De Candolle.

Glasgow, University.

Kew, Royal Gardens.

Melbourne, National Herbarium.

Natal (Durban), Colonial Herbarium.

Oxford, University.

Vienna, Imperial and Royal Natural History Museum.

Washington, U.S., United States National Herbarium (Smithsonian Institution).

Following are the works consulted by me up to date. Others will be referred to under separate species.


Sertum Anglicum, seu plantae rariores, quae in hortis juxta Londinum imprimis in horto regio Kewensi excoluntur.note

This work contains the first description of Eucalyptus, the first species described being E. obliqua.

  ― 22 ―

Gaertner, J.

De Fructibus et Seminibus Plantarum. 3 vols. 4to., 1788–1807.

Cavanilles, Antonio José.

Icones et descriptions plantarum, &c. 6 vols. Folio, 1791–1801.

Smith, J. E.

  • (a) A specimen of the Botany of New Holland. Vol. i. London, 1793.
  • (b) Transactions of the Linnean Society.

Lalillardiere, J. J.

  • (a) Novæ Hollandiæ plantarum specimen. 2 vols. Paris, 1804–6.
  • (b) Voyage in search of La Pérouse (translated from the French and published by J. Stockdale, London, 1800).

Bonpland, Aimé.

Description des plantes rares cultivées à Malmaison et à Navarre. A Paris de l'Imprimerie de P. Didot L'Ainé, 1813. Folio.

Contains a description and plate of Bonpland's E. diversifolia.

Loddiges, Conrad, and Sons.

Botanical Cabinet. (1817, &c.)

Link, H. F.

Enumeratio Plantarum Horti Regii Botanici Berolinensis Altera. Pars 1, Berlin, 1821. Pars 2, Berlin, 1822.

Link et Otto.

Icones Plantarum Selectarum. 4to. Berlin, 1820–8.

Sprengel, C.

Systema Vegetabilium. (Vol. iv, Pars 2, Curæ Posteriores), 1827.

Candolle, Aug. Pyr. de

Prodromus Systematis. Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis. Vol. iii (1828).

Mémoire sur la Famille des Myrtacées. (Posthumous work). Genève, Cherbuliez, 1842; Mém. de la Soc. de Phys. et d”hist. nat. de Genève. Vol. ix.

Don, G.

General System of Dichlamydeous Plants. Vol. ii (1832).

  ― 23 ―

Hooker, W. J., and Hooker, J. D.

  • (a) London Journal of Botany.
  • (b) Icones Plantarum.
  • (c) Botanical Magazine.

Hooker, J. D.

The Botany of the Antarctic Voyage. Part 3. Flora Tasmaniæ. 1860.

Lindley, J.

Edwards” Botanical Register. 1838, &c.

Walpers, W. P.

  • (a) Repertorium botanices systematicæ. ii, 163, 924; v, 743 (1843, &c.).
  • (b) Annales botanices systematicæ. i, 309; ii, 619.

Mitchell, T. L.

  • (a) Three Expeditions into the Interior of Eastern Australia. London, 1838 (2nd ed., 1849).
  • (b) Journal of an Expedition into the Interior of Tropical Australia. London, 1848.


Bull. Phys-Math. Acad. Pétersb. 10. 1852.

Miquel, F. A. G.

Stirpes nova Hollandas a Ferd. Mullero Collectas, Determinavit F. A. G. Miquel.note

Nederlandsch Kruidkundig Archief. Vol. iv, Part 2 (Vierde deel, tweede stuk), pp. 97–150. Leyden, 1856.

The date of this part is 1856 and not 1859 as quoted in B.Fl., iii.

Mueller, F.

  • (a) Proceedings, Linnean Society. Vol. iii (1858).
  • (b) Fragmenta phytographiæ Australiæ.
  • (c) Eucalyptographia.
  • (d) Western Australia. “General information respecting the present condition of forests and timber trade of the southern part of the Colony, together with a report on the forest resources of the Colony by Baron von Mueller.” Perth, 1882. The report was previously published by L. Reeve & Co., London, in 1879.

  ― 24 ―

Bentham, G.

Flora Australiensis. Vol. iii (1866.)

Woolls, W.

  • (a) A contribution to the Flora of Australia. Sydney, 1867.
  • (b) Lectures on the Vegetable Kingdom with special reference to the Flora of Australia. Sydney, 1879.

Howitt, W. A.

The Eucalypts of Gippsland. Trans. R.S. Vict. Vol. ii, Pt. 1, 81.

Deane, H. and Maiden, J. H.

Proc. Linn. Soc., N.S.W. 1895 to 1901.

Maiden, J. H.

Proc. Linn. Soc., N.S.W.; of Roy. Soc., S.A.; of Roy. Soc., Tas.; Victorian Naturalist; Agric. Gazette, N.S.W.; Bulletin, Herbier Boissier, &c. [See also Deane and Maiden.]

Baker, R. T.

Proc. Linn. Soc., N.S.W. 1899 onwards.

no previous