73 



167-205, 53 P er cent, came over; the residue thus represented 19 per cent. As 

 the amount of oil was small, less than half the usual quantity was available for 

 distillation. These fractions gave the following results : 



First fraction, sp. gr. at 15 C. == 0-8718; rotation a + 20-9; refractive 



index at 20 = 1-4670. 

 Second ,, ,, = 0-8816; rotation + 11-1; refractive 



index at jo : 1-4738. 

 Residue , ,, ,, = 0-9548 ; rotation not taken; refractive 



index at 20 = 1-5007. 



The cineol was determined by the resorcinol method in the rectified por- 

 tion; when calculated for the crude oil the result was 20 percent. The oil of 

 this species has a strong resemblance to those distilled from E. microcorys and 

 E. maculata. The chief terpene was dextro-rotatory pinene. The species has 

 little value as an oil-producing Eucalypt. 



The results obtained with the oil of this species were published by us in 

 the Trans. Roy. Soc., South Australia, 1916. 



30- Eucalyptus fasciculosa. 



(F.v.M., in Trans. Vic. Inst., 34, 1855.) 

 White Gum. 



Systematic. A small tree, seldom more than 30 feet in height, with a smooth 

 bark. Abnormal leaves broad, nearly ovate. Normal leaves lanceolate, thick, 

 or coriaceous, about 5 inches long and i inch broad ; intramarginal vein removed 

 from the edge, venation obscure, but inclined at about 45 to the mid-rib. Oil 

 glands not apparent. Flowers in paniculate umbels of about three to five flowers. 

 Calyx tube tapering, short pedicel; operculum blunt, conical, much shorter than 

 the calyx tube. 



Fruit. Conoidal, wrinkled, shining; rim thin, hori- 

 zontal, often with transverse cracks; valves 

 inserted, about 4 lines long and 2 lines 

 broad. In one form the fruit is inclined 

 to be semi-ovate ; rim double, the inner 

 being deciduous. 



These fruits so resemble those of E. paniculata thai on 

 morphological grounds it was long confounded u-ith 

 that species. They also are not unlike E. polyanthemos 

 and E. Fletcheri, in a few instances. 



Habitat. Victoria and South Australia. 



REMARKS. Mueller described this tree in Trans. Vic. Inst., vol. 34, but Bentham, 1866, " Flora 

 Australiensis," vol. iii, p. 212, synonymises it under E. paniculata. Mueller in his " Eucalyptographia," 1879, 

 concurs in such a classification, but Maiden, in Trans. Hoy. Soc. S. Aus., 1908, p. 280, shows that these two are 

 distinct, and as this is not an " Ironbark," they should be separated. It is another instance proving that something 

 more is required in the specific determination of Kucalypts than a moq3hologic.il comparison of the leaves, fruits, 

 &c. J, E. Brown figures and describes it in his " Forest Flora of South Australia." p. 46, under the name of 

 E. paniftilata. There can be no doubt that the flowers, leaves and fruits there figured much resemble E. panicuhita. 

 and there is also a strong connection in the chemistry of the oils of the two species, but the timbers, bark, and habitat 

 well indicate the specific differences. 



50068 F 



