128 



TIMBER. 



Historical. — Early Attempts at Classification. 



Governor Phillip was not enraptured with Eucalyptus timber. Four months after 

 the foundation of the colony (of New South Wales, which took place January. 1788) 

 he thus wrote (vide G. B. Barton) : — ■ 



The timber is well described in Captain Cook's Voyage, but unfortunately it has one very bad 

 quality, which puts us to great inconvenience; I mean the large gum-tree, which splits and warps in such 

 a manner when used green, and to which necessity obliged us, that a storehouse boarded up with this wood 

 is rendered useless. 



The expedition landed in the middle of summer, the worst time, of course, for 

 converting timber, while no one, a century and a quarter later, is likely to select timber 

 for economic purposes which naturally grows on the shores of Port Jackson. Phillip, 

 however, felt he had not been able to give the timber a fair chance, for he wrote a 

 few months later — 



. . . Gum trees of a very large size, and which are only useful as firewood, though I think that 

 when we can cut them down in the winter and give them time to season, they may be made useful in 

 building. (Barton's History of New South Wales, i, 337.) 



It cannot be said that early writers exaggerated the utility of Australian timbers. 



During the very month that Phillip wrote the first quoted statement, Major Ross 



wrote — 



.... and I have no doubt, but will, like the wood of this vile couiitry when burned or rotten, 

 turn to sand. This latter is a fact that has been proved . . . It is very certain that the whole face 

 of it is covered with trees, but not one bit of timber have we yet found that is fit for any other purpose 

 than to make the pot boil {op. cit., i, 501 .) 



An officer of marines wrote to Sir Jr seph Banks, and summed up the matter thus : " These Oum-trees 

 grow to an amazing size, but are scarce worth cutting down.'' (i, 504.) 



The early colonists met with timber of a hardness and intractability to which 

 they had been quite unaccustomed, and possessed very little food to supply the necessary 

 muscular energy. The references to Australian Eucalyptus timbers in works published 

 in the very early days were scant and indefinite, and are hard to interpret because of 

 the imperfection of the nomenclature. It was long before even botanists tackled them 

 because of the difficulties surrounding their classification. 



The collection of New South Wales timbers by Caley (1800-1810) has been 

 referred to at Part L, p. 308 (under Barks). 



The vast majority of Australian timbers at present put to use are Eucalypts, and 

 the discrimination of species precedes and <l<mrinates the state of our knowledge of these 

 timbers. The botany of Eucalyptus has for long been obviously unsatisfactory, as can be 

 gathered from the baxonomic portion of this work, but the co-ordination of knowledge 

 in regard to the timbers was in far greater confusion. The use of vernaculars was 





