1 6 14 The Trees of Great Britain and Ireland 



which were accepted as correct by Baron von Mueller, who states in his Eucalypto- 

 graphia that four trees of this species were 415, 471, 410, and 420 ft. in height 

 respectively. Dr. A. S. Ewart of the Melbourne University considers 1 that these 

 measurements were grossly exaggerated ; and instances the fact that the tree which 

 many years previously D. Boyle had measured on the Dandenong range as 420 ft., was 

 found by Fuller in 1889 to be only 220 ft. in height, with a girth of 48 ft. at six feet 

 from the ground. Dr. Ewart states that although E. amygdalina (including E. regnans), 

 is the tallest species in Australia, it rarely exceeds 300 ft. He gives as the maximum 

 heights accurately recorded the following : a tree growing on the edge of a ridge 

 found by Professor Kernot to be 302 ft. ; others growing in thick groves, which were 

 found by Perrin, Davidson, and Fuller to be 271, 294, 296^, 297, and 303 ft. The 

 tallest Australian tree that has been correctly measured 2 appears to be one of E. 

 regnans, on Mt. Baw-Baw, Gippsland, 91 miles from Melbourne, which Maiden 3 

 gives as 326 ft. in height, and 25 ft. 7 in. in girth. 



About 150 species of Eucalyptus are known, the greater part of which are 

 natives of Australia and Tasmania, only three or four species occurring in New 

 Guinea, the Moluccas, and Timor, and one species 4 in the Bismarck Archipelago 

 (New Britain) and the Philippine Islands. 



The following notes deal shortly with some of the tender species, 5 which have 

 seemed to succeed in the British Isles for a time ; but which we do not consider 

 worthy of a lengthened notice. 



Eucalyptus alpina, Lindley, a shrub confined to the summit of Mt. William, 5000 

 ft. altitude, fifty miles north of Melbourne. Planted out in Arran 6 in 1884, it attained 

 14 ft. in height in eleven years, and seemed to be very hardy, flowering in the spring 

 of 1888. It was, however, ultimately killed in 1894. At Kinloch Hourn, the seedlings 

 which were planted out did not long survive. 



E. amygdalina? Labillardiere, a large tree abundant in Tasmania, and occurring 

 in many localities in Victoria and New South Wales. There are three trees 20 ft. 

 high, probably of this species, at Menabilly. Seedlings raised at Kinloch Hourn in 

 1890 were all killed in the winter of 1894-95, except one in a sheltered valley, 

 which was cut to the ground, and died subsequently. Another batch of seedlings 

 raised in 1895 were killed in 1899- 1900. Planted at Cromla in Arran 8 in 1895, it 

 grew rapidly, and was 20 ft. in 1905. Mr. John Paterson, who sent a specimen 

 branch, states that this tree was 30 ft. high in June 191 1. We have a specimen 

 from Brodick of a young tree planted out in 1909. At Abbotsbury, it was killed in 

 1908, when 20 ft. high, by 16 of frost. Mueller says that near Lake Maggiore in 



1 la Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Series B, vol. 199, p. 367 (1908). Cf. Hemsley, in Gard. Chron. xlvii. 69 (1910). 

 1 The tallest tree in the world, that has been accurately measured, was the Redwood on Eel River, California, which was 

 found by Sargent in 1896 to be 340 feet in height. Cf. our Vol. III. p. 692, and also p. 690, note 3. 



3 Maiden, Forest Flora, ii. 161-165 ('97)> gives accurate measurements of several trees that Ewart does not mention. 



4 E. Naudiniana, MuelU-r. Cf. Maiden, Revis. Gen. Etualypt. ii. 79 (1910). The distribution of this species is 

 remarkable. 



6 Some of these may be hardy in Mr. Heard's garden at Rossdohan in Kerry, and also in the Scilly Isles ; but the 

 climate of these localities is exceptionally free from frost. 



6 Landsborough, in Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin. xx. 522 (1896). In ibid, xxiii. 147 (1905), Landsborough mentions a tree 

 at Cromla in Arran, planted in 1895, which was 20 ft. high in 1905. 



7 The tree recorded in Gard. Chron. xxvi. 790 (1886) under this name, as 60 ft. high at Fota, is E. pauciflora. Cf. 

 p. 1632. The tree at Dalkeith, mentioned under this name \nJourn. Roy. Hort. Soc. xviii. 76 (1895) was probably incorrectly 

 named. 8 Landsborough, in Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin. xxiii. 148(1905). 



