Systematic Classification here adopted. 



\YHF.N this research was first commenced it was intended to follow the usual 

 morphological systematic classification of previous botanists ; but, as the work 

 progressed, it was found that nothing definite could be arrived at if such a course 

 were followed. 



By working on morphological grounds alone, it was found that many of 

 the so-called individual species possessed different barks, timbers, oils, dyes, &c. 

 a state of things which quite differed from our definition of a species/ Such an 

 artificial system (as this research appeared, to prove it) had to be discarded, and 

 what is, apparently, a more real or natural system of classification had to be 

 adopted, viz., founding a species, not on morphological characters of dried 

 material alone, but on 



1. A field knowledge of the trees; 



2. The nature and character of their barks; 



3. The nature and character of their timbers; 



4. Morphology of their fruits, leaves, buds, &c. ; 



5. Chemical properties and physical characters of the oils, dyes, kinos, &c., 



and the utilisation of any other evidence, such as histology, physiology, 

 &c., that might assist in establishing differences or affinities of species. 



Our experience, extending now over a period of thirty years, shows that 

 a species founded on the above system as laid down in our first edition is found 

 after these years, to be practically constant in specific characters, however great 

 the range of distribution may be, and many evidences of this fact will be 

 noticed throughout the work. In the very few exceptions to this rule, reasons 

 for the divergence seem to be clear. 



Necessarily a classification of species on such a broad basis has not 

 always led us to coincide with the opinions and decisions of previous, as well as 

 contemporaneous, botanical workers on the genus. Our experience verifies the 

 remarks of the late Dr. Woolls, who states : 



' Many of the trees which differ very widely in the texture of their bark 

 and the specific gravity of their wood, and to all intents and purposes are 

 perfectly distinct from each other, yet agree very nearly with ordinary 

 characters by which species are regulated, so that a written description, especially 

 from dried specimens, may be applied to half-a-dozen different kinds of " Gum." 

 Indeed, this has frequently been the case, and even amongst men of scientific 

 attainments, as might be easily shown by referring to the various works which 

 have been written on the subject." (Flora of Aust., p. 213.) 



By the method of classification here advocated and adopted, no such 

 confusion of trees is possible. 



This research does not in the least favour the uniting of species, and 

 several of those that have been synonymised in the past are here restored to 

 their original specific rank. It was found that the old morphological classification 

 was untenable in particular cases, so also was it recognised that descriptions and 

 original material of some species were made to include, under the one name, trees 

 which were evidently distinct from each other, and these are separated in 

 this work ; for instance, under E. Stuartiana, were included in descriptions and 



