EdCAili/ptus Fruticetoritin. 299 



Mr. Baker [op. cit. p. liSj states that he was shown a specimen 

 bearing Mueller's label, " E. fruticetorum," but does not quote the 

 furtlier particulars on that label. Perhaps it was Mr. W. Percy 

 Wilkinsons specimen. I repeat that that specimen was labelled by 

 Mueller E. fruticetorum in 1892. 1 further say that this specimen 

 is identical with a plant which Mr. Baker believed to be new in 

 1900. and named by him E. polyhractea. 



If these two statements of mine are wrong, Mr. Baker should 

 point out the error or errors, and I will gladly withdraw them. I 

 have bestowed much care on the elucidation of Mueller's E. fruti- 

 cetorum, and, since 1908 believe that finality has been attained. 



At p. 149 Mr. Baker says Mueller's description of E. fruticetorum 

 is too meagre upon which to place any systematic work, yet at p. 

 150 ho assumes (paiallel cohuiins) that the contrary is the case. 



I have done my very best to ascertain the species-names of the 

 older workers in Eucalypts, and have revived more than one nanie 

 from unmerited oblivion. 



Having found Mueller's fruticetorum (not the type, for that is 

 lost, but the next best thing, a specimen certified by the describer), 

 all the previous surmises, founded on imperfect and even doubtful 

 material, give way (as far as I am concerned) to my latest pro- 

 nouncement. A botanist has a right, like any other person, to be 

 judged by his latest decision. 



Mr. Baker's criticism is entirely negative as regards E. fruti- 

 cetorum: he does not make a single suggestion as to wliat it may 

 be, but leaves it a name, in spite of Mueller's own identification of 

 it. 



In passing, let me say that one must not apply the microscope 

 too closely to the descriptions of Eucalyptus species by the older 

 l)otanists. (Surely the same thing applies to other groups of 

 jilants and animals). One must try and find out what they meant; 

 what they did not mean is less important. <^^n mote tlian one occa- 

 sion when in conversation I confronted Mueller with difficulties of 

 this kind, he gave his ruling, and added, " We must read descrip- 

 tions philosophically " — a favourite word of his. 



He obtained a great acquisition of Eucalyptus inaterial at the 

 time he wrote the description of E. fruticetorum, namely, during 

 the writing of the second volume of the Fragmenta. The confusion 

 he made with his E. hemiphloia (see Fraijm. ii. G2. and also my 

 €rit. Rev. ii.. 14), is an extreme case. 



Smith confused both his E. resinifera and ^'. piperita, but 

 years afterwards. Smith being dead, and the types lost, Bentham 



