216 A CONTRIBUTION TO, ETC. 



rendered smooth by the shedding of the outer layer, viz., More- 

 ton Bay ash, blackbut, box, &c. (3.) ItJiytiphloitf, such as have 

 the bark everywhere persistent, wrinkled, full of clefts, and solid 

 within, such as blood wood, peppermint in part, &c. (4.) 

 Pachypkloite, such as have the bark everywhere persistent, wrink- 

 led and fibrous within, as stringy bark trees. (5.) Scliizopliloice, 

 such as have the bark everywhere persistent, deeply furrowed, 

 and solid within, viz., iron-bark trees. (6.) LepidopJiloice, having 

 the bark persistent at least in the trunk, lamellate, and friable, 

 as melaleuca gum-trees, mica trees. Mr. Bentham, after referring 

 to the difficulty of proposing any division, which is not open to 

 objection, alludes to the cortical system, as stated in the words of 

 Dr. F. Mueller, and remarks, " I am totally unable to judge, nor 

 have I any means of availing myself of the sections founded on 

 the nature of the barks, for the specimens themselves never show 

 the character, and a large portion of them is either unaccompanied 

 by any notes of it, or the collectors' notes are from various 

 causes indefinite, unreliable, or even contradictory." He then 

 proceeds to state the plan adopted by him, as being the most 

 expedient he could devise under the circumstances. "I have thus 

 been compelled to establish groups upon such characters as 

 appeared to me the most constant amongst those which are sup- 

 plied by the specimens ; in the first place, upon the form of the 

 anthers, and secondly upon that of the fruit, aud in some cases 

 on the inflorescence, or the calyx." The system, indeed, is very 

 ingenious, and one which would not have been conceived by a man 

 of ordinary attainments, but in a colonial point of view, it is open 

 to many objections. In the first place, there is a want of cer- 

 tainty in the groups, as Mr. Bentham admits that they pass very 

 gradually into each other through intermediate forms ; and in the 

 second place, the system is too artificial and microscopic in its 

 character to be of any utility excepting to the botanist. The 

 gravest objection, however, is that of placing in the same 

 group, species wjiich in the eyes of the colonists, are always 

 regarded as perfectly distinct from each other and also of sep- 

 arating, under various sections, trees which by bark, wood, habit, 

 and general character, ought to stand near each other. To make 

 my meaning clear, I will give a few examples of the inconsisten- 

 cies which arise from grouping our gums according to the 



