89 



The confusion of a White Gum and Ivonbark puzzled Naudin* a good deal. 



It is quite clear (Isl Mem., 400) that he includes E. sideroxylon under 

 E. lencoxylon. The juvenile leaves dejiicted by Mueller in the "Eucalyptographia" 

 for leucQxylon are a great stumbling block, and he suggests some error in labelling 

 in regard to the difiPerent seeds he has received from various sources under the name 

 H. leucoxylon. At page 401 he distinctly states that it is the Ironbark which they 

 possess in Prance. 



roUowing Mueller, instead of Woolls, he looks upon the Ironbark as the 

 type of the species (leucoxylon), and points out the similarity of the growing 

 French trees to those of H. longifolia. The flowers in the umbel are from 3 to 9. 



This conclusion as to the determination (erroneous) of E. leucoxylon is 

 important, not only because Naudin's observations on the Eucalypts are the most 

 important of those of any French botanist, but because the French are the most 

 assiduous cultivators of the genus in Europe. 



Then we turn to 2nd Mem., and we find that Naudin, at p. 36 (still following 

 Mueller), adheres to the opinion that E. leucoxylon is the " Ironbark des Colons 

 australiens," and states his opinion that the juvenile foliage depicted by Mueller in 

 his " Eucalyptographia " plate under E. leucoxylon is referable to another species. 

 Proceeding to discuss the conflicting statements of Mueller and Woolls in regard to 

 E. sideroxylon and E. leucoxylon, he concludes that he is unable to decide on the 

 matter. He adds that he persists in considering his E. gracilipes as distinct from 

 E. leucoxylon [E. sideroxylon. — J.H.M.), to which it may be a good deal analogous, 

 and he regarded it possible that it might be the " White Gum " of the Australian 

 colonists. 



There is no doubt, however, in my mind, that E. gracilipes, Naudin, is 

 E. leucoxylon, F.v.M. (with the E. sideroxylon confusion eliminated). Mueller was 

 wrong in mixing lap E. sideroxylon with E. leucoxylon ; on the other hand, he was 

 quite right in his figure of the broad juvenile leaves of E. leucoxylon on the 

 " Eucalyptographia " plate. Naudin rejected the juvenile leaves as incorrect for 

 E. leucoxylon, but accepted the Ironbark as correct for that species, and thus was 

 led to found another species. 



Notes supplementary to the Description. 



Blue Gums (leucoxylon) are often covered with rough bark here right up into the tree. • The bark 

 is white inside, not yellow, and in some parts of the country the young bark is of a dirty yellow after the 

 old falls off, and in others pinker or whiter. It varies very much, according to locality. In the warmer 

 parts it is generally hollow in the centre and more solid than in the cooler parts, (W. Gill, Conservator 

 of Forests of South Australia, in litt., 5i\i October, 1904.) 



• " M^moire sur les Eucalyptus introduita dans la r(5gion M^diterranfene." Annates des Sciences Naturelles, 6e 

 S^rie. Bot T., xvi, pp. 337-4.30 (1883). (Quoted as 1st Mem.) ; and 



" Description et emploi des Eucalyptus introduits en Europe, principalement en France et en AIg(5rie." Second 

 M6moire. Antibes, 1891, pp. 1-72. (Quoted as 2nd Mem.) 



