8 



Dr. Woolls /•/. A ii si., p. 217 si a Us, under his article on the Eucalypts :— 

 ' Whatever merit there may be in an artificial system by which museum 



plants can be named I do not think that such an arrangement 



will evei meet with much favour with those who are studying the living plants." 



By adhering closely to tne system which we advanced in the first edition 

 of this research, and have followed since the publication of that work eighteen 

 years ago, it is found that the species show, comparatively, not much variation; 

 in fact, possess such a constancy of specific characters, that is surprising in the 

 light of previous published literature on the Eucalypts. 



Statements that a species in one locality has a smooth bark, and in 

 another locality has a " Stringybark," and sometimes an " Ironbark," are not 

 verified by our work. For instance, it was at one time recorded that the 

 " Scribbly .Gum " (E. hcemastoma, Sm.) was occasionally found as a " Stringy- 

 bark." investigation proved that no such variation existed, and that the tree 

 with a " Stringybark " is quite distinct from the smooth-bark, — " Gum " (£. 

 hcemastoma, Sm.), and has a good geographical range and a constancy of specific 

 characters distinct from E. hcemastoma, and so it has been separated and 

 botanicallv named E. Wilkinsoniana ; it is commonly known as " Small-leaved 

 Stringybark." The red rim of the fruits appears to be the main connecting 

 character of these species, and this feature has little discriminative value. 



The reputed variability of the species of the genus might possibly have 

 arisen, because— 



1. Original descriptions were so brief, and material too indefinite, as to be 



practically useless. Dr. Woolls was of this opinion, for he states : 

 ' When I find writers of some eminence referring very different trees 

 to the same species, I cannot but see the inadequacy of the descriptions 

 hitherto relied on." All such doubtful descriptions have been ignored 

 in this work, as there appears to be no finality in trying to match 

 material to such vague diagnoses and fragmentary specimens. 



2. Too much reliance was placed on herbarium specimens. Botanical 



systematic work can generally be carried out on dried material in most 

 instances, but in the case of the Eucalypts it is not the only evidence 

 needed, as some of the essential natural characters are not represented 

 in such material. 



3. Common names are used too indiscriminately. In almost every work 



on the Eucalypts, one finds a number of common names appended to 

 the botanical one. In the light of our present knowledge most of these 

 common names can be shown to refer to distinct" species. In this work 

 the common names have been subordinated to the botanical, being 

 considered of secondary importance. 



4. Sufficient attention has probably not been given to field botany in the 



determination of many Eucalyptus species. Dr. Woolls may be again 



quoted in that he states : ' Trees placed by botanists under one specific 



name would never be so considered if studied in nature, for there the 



specific differences are so marked that no one would ever think the 



trees were one and the same species." Our researches confirm this 



statement ; and numerous instances of this fact might be given here. 



The comparative constancy of specific characters, morphological and 



chemical, such as the constituents of the oils, dyes, tars, &c, amongst the 



Eucalypts is perhaps only what one might expect to find, when it is assumed 



that this continent is one of, if not, the oldest on this planet, having evidently 



remained stationary during certain subsidences and upheavals of other parts 



of the earth, and so preserved the fauna and flora oJ past geological times. 



