EUCALYPTUS FLORA. 367 
“Stringybark can be obtained in patches all over 
Tasmania, but is most abundant in the south; like the 
Blue Gum, it can be got of any reasonable length or size. 
It is of quicker growth than the gum, and is of a lighter 
and milder nature generally. _ The timber is much used 
in Tasmania, and in the adjacent Colonies, for house- 
building, &c. To ensure durability the wood requires fair 
seasoning. The different varieties are Gum-top Stringy- 
bark,* Brown and White Stringybark (the Brown being 
the older growth). The White Stringybark makes good 
palings and shingles.” 
An official report says : — 
“ Eucalyptus obliqua (Stringybark) is our most valuable 
wood. It differs from, and is better than, the Stringybark 
of Australia. The timber is light-coloured, and varies 
considerably, from a brown wood resembling oak to a much 
lighter-coloured wood resembling ash; and because of the 
' great variety of its uses, and its abundance, is more valuable 
economically than Blue Gum. The bark might be made a 
source of income, as it is suitable for the manufacture of 
paper.” 
The timber appears to be more valuable in Tasmania 
than on the mainland; its utilisation as a paper-making 
material is not likely to have any commercial importance. 
Although chiefly a Tasmanian and Victorian tree, it has 
during the last four years been found to extend over very 
large areas in New South Wales, though its precise limit 
is a matter for further investigation. It is abundant in 
many places along the top of the eastern slope of the coast 
range from Mittagong south. Thence there is a gap in 
our localities until the Upper Williams River and Eastern 
New England is reached. We do not know the connecting 
links between the southern and northern localities; it 
doubtless will be found in various spurs of the Grea/ 
Dividing Range. It extends to South Australia. 
Synonyms— 
1. HL. gigantea, Hook. f. (Lond. Journ. Bot. vi. 479 
(1847)... Wie Fash, 136, tf. xxvaid,) 
As already pointed out, 1. obliqua, L’Herit., 
was not known to Hooker at the time he wrote 
“Fl. Tas.,” nor clearly to Mueller in ‘‘ Fragm.,”’ 
i. 44, 45, where the supposed differences 
between #. obliqua, L’Herit., and H. gigantea, 
Hook. f., are discussed. (See also “ Fragm.”’ 
uu. 171, 172.) I am not quite clear as to the 
* See p. 370. 
