208 



This is one of the most unsatisfactorily defined of the early species. The 

 extreme brittleness of the wood, and the large quantity of " resinous gum" (really 

 kino), at once show that the tree now understood as E. resinifera is quite a different 

 species. 



The original figure of the bark, and the description of the wood and resinous 

 exudation, apply exactly to Angophora lanceolata. The figures of the buds apply 

 fairly well to the Red Mahogany, and doubtless assisted in causing Bentham to 

 describe that tree under the name Eucalyptus resinifera, Smith. They may, however, 

 be E. tereticornis. Eucalyptus Stuartiana F.v.M., one of the Apple-trees, is another 

 of our Eucalvpts which were originally described from different material from that 

 now understood as the species. See Vol. iii, p. 68 of the present work. E. hemiphloia 

 F.v.M. is another. See Vol. ii, p. 14 of this work. 



The name resinifera was used very loosely, almost in a generic sense, by old 

 writers; for example, the plate E. resinifera of a celebrated work (Hayne's Arznei 

 Gewaeh.se, Vol. x, Plate v, 1825) is a plate of E. tereticornis Sm., with fruits of 

 E. corymbosa Sm. 



As E. resinifera was an unsatisfactory species, Bentham re-defined it by 

 describing the Red or Forest Mahogany under that name. His description may be 

 seen in B.F1. iii, 245. 



Bentham goes on to say (p. 246) : — 



Smith's specimen is a garden one, with the operculum about twice the calyx-tube, but a native 

 one in the Banksian herbarium, probably seen by Smith, has it three times the calyx-tube. Gajrtner's 

 figure and description of the fruit of Mctrosideros gummifera, quoted by Smith as belonging to E. resinifera, 

 and which has thus prevented the recognising the species, was taken from a specimen in the Banksian 

 Herbarium of E. corymbosa. 



It is obviously impossible for Smith's specimen (described in 1790) to have been 

 a garden one; Bentham was unaware (see Plates 124 and 125) of the variation in the 

 relative sizes of operculum and calyx-tube. The way E. corymbosa came on the scene 

 to complicate matters is explained by the reference to Gaertner's De Fructibus, Tab. 

 xxxiv, Mctrosideros gummifera. See also Hayne's work above quoted. 



Mueller figured the plant adopted by Bentham as E. resinifera, in the 

 " Eucalyptographia." 



Of the vernaculars quoted by Bentham, " Red Gum " is probably Angophora 

 lanceolata and may perhaps be E. tereticornis ; ' ; Red Mahogany " is correct; " Grey 

 Gum " wnd " Leather Jacket" are E. punctata DC. " Hickory is said, on the authority 

 of Rev. Dr. Woulls, to refer to E. punctata, but I do not call to mind having heard it 

 used for that species, h is certainly never applied to E. resinifera, 



In speaking of the erroneous vernaculars which up to Bentham's time (certainly 

 not since, ;i- no <>ne now confuses the Forest Mahogany, E. resinifera, witli any other 

 tree). Mueller (" Eucalyptographia") says: — "Should it be deemed desirable to 

 construct a new vernacular name, that of the New South Wales Kino-Eucalypt might 

 be found the most appropriate, as it was this species which brought the Australian 

 Kino first into medical notice." 



