available in descriptions of new species, say that it is pleasing to find that there are 



indications that Messrs. Baker and Smith are coming round to such a view, in spite of 



their erroneous deductions. 



(c) At p. 9 they quote Mueller's words from the " Eucalyptographia " — 



" E. obliijva is distinguished from E. piperita by . . . and perhaps by anatomic histologic, and 

 chemical peculiarities of the bark and wood, which characteristics remain yet more comprehensively to be 

 studied." 



(a) As a specimen of special pleading, see the authors' remarks at p. 9 — - 



" That there are variations cannot be denied (my italics, J.H.M.), but they are comparatively few 

 when the extensive range of the gen.us is considered. With the exception of about half a dozen, all the 

 Eucalypts enumerated in this work will be found to possess comparatively constant characters throughout 

 their geographical distribution. On the whole, therefore, we think that the Eucalypts may be regarded 

 as fairly (a buffer-word, J.H.M.) invariable. It must, of course, be admitted that herbarium material of 

 Eucalyptus species can be so arranged (a euphuism for faked, J.H.M.) as to show perfect gradations; but 

 then all other physical characters are ignored." 



(I taught Mr. Baker, many years ago, that it would be unscientific, that is to say 

 untruthful, to ignore them, J.M.H.) 



How can we presume to set a limit to the variation? It has been going on, it is 

 going on, and it will be going on for all time. The only thing constant, amidst the 

 incessant changes amongst species, is the type of each species. 



The authors' arguments, stated at length on pp. 9-11, and based on data deduced 

 from oil-results, confirm the obvious necessity for botanically correct material to be 

 supplied if chemically correct oils are required. 



(e) 



" As a further evidence of the comparative constancy of Eucalyptus species, one need only look to 

 their introduction into other countries, where they retain all their physical characters and morphology, as 

 obtains in their native habitat." (p. 11.) 



A statement like this could only have been penned by those ignorant of variation 

 in the same species under cultivation in various parts of the world, e.g., Algiers and 

 California. See, e.g., my paper " The variability of Eucalyptus under cultivation," 

 Proc, Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 887 (1903). The evidence of variation that I have seen as a 

 cultivator, and much of it is in the National Herbarium, Sydney, to-day, is overwhelming. 



(/) 



" Necessarily, our conclusions cannot always be expected to coincide with those who have classified, 

 on morphological grounds alone, so wonderful a genus as the Eucalypts." (p. 20.) 



I think that " coinciding " is an ideal which will never be attained. Each 

 worker must contribute his mite to the total. At present the work has only been begun, 

 and new species remain to be discovered, additional facts require to be known about 

 described species, while we are only on the threshold of our knowledge of the complicated 

 relations of species to one another. 



(9) 



" E. dives. The oil of E. dives shows a comparative constancy similar to those of other individual 

 Eucalypts, so that the species has now been stabilised." (p. 305.) 

 G 





