233 



had several conversations with Sir William about the woods, but at the time he was collecting the third 

 volume of our Flora Australiensis had not arrived in the colony, and so there was a difficulty in determining 

 the species. 



There is also a tree (of which I am not certain) called Scrub or Brush or Forest Ironbark — so-called 

 at the Kurrajong — I referred to E. paniculata, whose bark was not so furrowed as the species near Sydney, 

 and the wood was reported to be light in colour and tough. (This is E. Beyeri. J.H.M.) 



I have been assured by practical men that the timber varies in proportion to age, and also to the 

 soil in which it grows. 



c. Mueller's views : — 



E. angustifolia Woolls, " Lectures on the Vegetable Kingdom," p. 12-3, is a form of E. crebra. It 

 seems not likely that E. paniculata will ever be taken for E. crebra, as the leaves of the latter are never 

 much unlike in the colour of their two pages, as all the stamens are fertile, the anthers opening in their 

 whole length, and the fruits usually smaller and angular. (" Eucalyptographia," under E. crebra.) 



E. crebra and E. microcorys are also not dissimilar to E. paniculata, and mere fruiting twigs of these 

 tliree might easily be referred to the wrong species, but in a flowering state the mode of dehiscence of the 

 anthers distinguish them easily from each other, irrespective of several other characteristics. 

 (" Eucalyptographia," under E. paniculata.) 



D. Mr. Baker's views :— 



1. In general features, such as leaves, buds, fruits, it very closely resembles E. crebra, and from 

 herbarium material alone might easily be mistaken for E. crebra, but the timber at once readily difierentiates 

 it from that species. . , . 



2. With E. paniculata Sm. " The chief differences from the type of E. paniculata are the shape and 

 size of the fruits, shape of the leaves, timber and bark. In botanical sequence it may be placed after the 

 type E. paniculata. . . ." 



The chief features are so distinct from the type E. paniculata, that it is now proposed to raise it to 

 specific rank under the name of E. Beyeri. 



3. In p. 420, general statements as to affinities to E. crebra and E. paniculata are made — " from 

 herbarium material alone (it) might easily be mistaken for E. crebra. ... In botanical sequence it 

 may be placed after the type E. paniculata. . . ." " The chief features are so distinct from the type 

 E. panicuhta, that it is now proposed to raise it to specific rank," &c. 



As in other proposed species referred to in this paper, the chief reliance is made on difierence in the 

 timber. " The timber alone readily differentiates it from that species " {E. crebra), (p. 421). 



Previously (p. 420), " It is ... not easily confounded with any other (timber) yet described." 



So far I have spent a good deal of time examining timbers connected with 

 herbarium specimens of E. paniculata, and also of pieces of E. Fergusoni, E. Nanglei 

 and E. Beyeri, certified to by Mr. Baker himself. Nor have I relied entirely on my 

 own judgment. I find them all brown, particularly either when kept or taken from 

 an old tree. Of the specimens in my care, that of E. Fergusoni is the reddest, though 

 in most E. paniculata timbers there can be detected some red, particularly in a suitable 

 light. It is because the timber of E. Beyeri seems, so far as my specimens go, the 

 brownest of the lot, that (taken in conjunction Avith the morphological characters) I 

 think E. Beyeri is worthy of specific rank. But the species is still somewhat 

 unsatisfactory, and, like some others of our species, requires further investigation. 



