BY J. H. MAIDEN. 25 



particulai-s as to the tree which yielded it, date of collec- 

 tion, and so on. Systematists are by no means free from 

 blame as regards their work. Mueller has placed us under 

 the greatest obligation in regard to his pioneering mono- 

 graph on Eucalyptus, a foundation on which all succeeding 

 workers must build, but in the vast majority of his plates he 

 gives us no details as to the specimen figured. In effect, 

 he says, "This is Eucalyptvxs of svich and such a species, 

 never mind whether it is the type, or a South Australian 

 or Queensland form of it." We have the same absence of 

 necessary particulars in regard to his illustrated works on 

 Acacias, Salsolaceous plants, Myoporinese, Candolleaceae, 

 and, indeed, most of his works. In the vast majority of 

 plates the types certainly are not drawn, and what particu- 

 lar form, attributed to the species, we can only guess at. 

 The value of a botanical drawing may be vei-y greatly dis- 

 counted if the precise locality, date of collection, and even 

 the name of the collector, be omitted. If these particulars 

 cannot be given, the plate should not be published. 



Messrs. Baker and Smith have a practical monopoly, an 

 honourable monopoly, in regard to appliances for oil dis- 

 tillation and analysis, and all monopolies are to be de- 

 precated. When another scientific institution can under- 

 take the cost involved in the installation of such apparatus, 

 we shall have a series of independent observations accom- 

 panied by data that I have indicated, and such as these 

 gentlemen, holding the opinion that oil from the same 

 species does not vary, consider unnecessary. 



Brief notes will now be given in regard to some of the 

 species referred to by the authors. 



1. E. acervula Hook. f. 



The authors state that E. acervula Hook. f. and E. j^alu- 

 (lom R. T. Baker are specifically distinct, specifying the 

 following differences: — 



(a) The smooth bark of E. •paludosa and the rough 

 Dark, ' mostPy"' of E. acervula. 



(b) Bushy top and leaves of rather pendulous growth 

 of E. acervula, while E. jjaluclosa "is a fine typical tree, 

 "with stout outstretching branches and a straight stem." 



(c) "The timber of E. acervula is harder, closer grain- 

 "ed and altogether superior to that of E. paluclosa." 



(d) "The oil of E. acervula does not agree entirely in 

 "general characters with that of E. j)aludosay 



Let us examine these points in detail. 



(a) Rodway, Tasmanian Flora, p. 57, says of E. acer- 

 vula, "Bark scaly below, smooth above." A field note^ 



