PROCEEDINGS OP SECTION D. 331 



When I auuounced before the Linnean Society of New South 

 Wales some years ago that I was about to inaugurate a research on 

 the eucalypts, and introduce chemistry as an aid to their syste- 

 matic classification, I met with very little encouragement, I am 

 happy to say, for I am of opinion that if there is no opposition 

 to one's ideas, there is nothing probably in those ideas. 



The correlation of these two sciences, botany and chemistry, 

 has had, however, the effect of bringing in other sciences to help 

 in the elucidation of the systematic classification of these wonder- 

 ful trees, as we have now Mr. R. H. Cambage employing geology, 

 and even mineralogy, for he is making alkalinity or acidity of 

 rocks a considerable factor in the differentiation or affinity of 

 species. 



One can quite understand a morphologist of, say, twenty or 

 thirty years ago saying what is the use of all this combination of 

 sciences, for then the commercial side was not so dependent on 

 applied science. Now we find applied science is just such an exact 

 science as pure science in these times, for no satisfactory commer- 

 cial results can be obtained from the eucalypts, but by working on 

 lines of a natural differentiation of the species. 



After conducting our researches on the old method of morpho- 

 logy for a little time, it was soon evident to us that there was 

 something wrong with the morphological machinery, which would 

 not run true, as there were two or three "cogs," so to speak, 

 trying to be jammed into the space where there should be only 

 one in the opposing wheel, or to put it botanically, there were 

 three or four species v/here, according to chemistry and cognate 

 sciences, there should be only one. For instance, E. amygdalina, 

 E. dives, E. linearis, E. Delegatensis, E. radiata, E. .Risdoni, 

 were all placed at one time under the first mentioned species, which 

 1.^ one, and quite distinct. 



Again, it has been asserted that E. pilularis, E. laevopinea, E. 

 dextropinea, and E. macrorhyncha are one and the same species. 

 Morphologically, they may be, but that is no good to the applied 

 scientists, or the commercial man ; he must go closer to nature than 

 that, or his resultant commercial venture will be a failure. 



One English critic styled me a " splitter of species," and I 

 acknowledge the soft impeachment. If I were not so, then applied 

 science and commerce of the eucalypts would to-day be labouring 

 under a disadvantage. It was the separation of tlie above species 

 under E. amygdalina that has brought forward the value of phel- 

 landrene in mineral separation, for it was from the Technological 

 Museum that a complete set of oils of every species investigated 



