389 



how to discriminate between variety and species, by considering all the characters of the trees collectively 

 (the italics are. mine, J.H.M.), and by paying due attention to the soil, habit, structure, and texture of the 

 bark, the manner of its decortications; consulting likewise, as very important, the insertion and form of 

 the fruit-valves, which, before, opening, form either a flat or more or less cancer vertex to the capsule, a character 

 which, beautiful as it is, can only be studied in living plants. Important also is the structure and form 

 of the fertile seeds, most of the ovules becomiug abortive. The former are, in many kinds, provided with 

 a very large wing, although the seeds of the generality of the species are wingless. . .'* (Hooker's 

 Journal of Botany, Vol. ix, p. 165-6.) 



The following remarks (Bentham, 1866) show that that eminent man was 

 fully seized with the desirability of employing as many characters as possible :— 



" I have thus beeii compelled to establish groups upon such characters as appeared to me the most 

 constant among those which are supplied by the specimens: in the first place upon the form of the anthers, 

 and secondly upon that of the fruit, and in some cases on the inflorescence of the calyx. It must be admitted, 

 indeed, that these groups, distinct as they may be in the typical species, pass very gradually into each other 

 through intermediate forms, b\it I have endeavoured to supply cross-references to facilitate the determination 

 of dried specimens in doubtful cases. It is to be hoped that, in the elaborate monograph of the genus with 

 plates representing all the species promised by Dr. Mueller in his ' Fragmenta,' he, from his knowledge 

 of the Gum-trees in a living state, will be able to give us a true natural arrangement founded upon the 

 proposed cortical or any other system which experience may induce him to adopt." (B.FL, iii, 186.) 



" Mr. (Henry) Deane called attention to a means of distinguishing species of plants by qualities and 

 products which are generally overlooked by botanists, but which are of the utmost practical value. Plants 

 only slightly differing outwardly are put down as mere varieties of the same species. Inquiry, however, 

 perhaps shows that their products, such as timber, are quite different in character, in which case, therefore, 

 they ought to be recognised as quite distinct in species. Mr. Deane exhibited timber specimens of three 

 so-called varieties of Eucalyptus saligna, the Sydney Blue-Gum, two of E. hcemastoma, and two of E. gonio- 

 °aly.c to illustrate his remarks." (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., xiv, 190, 1889.) 



" Mr. Deane exhibited a few specimens of Eucalyptus timbers with a view of showing that their 

 c haracters are not without value as an aid in the determination- of species . . ." (lb., xvi, 576, 1891.) 



These innocent looking remarks refer to what was really a rebellion against 



authority. Mr. Deane and I had been in close touch as regards the study of 



Eucalypts for some years, and in the following year a very pleasant publishing 

 partnership in regard to the genus began between us. 



In those days Baron von Mueller was the only Australian authority on 

 Eucalyptus; to him all queries were remitted for decision, and he ruled us all with 

 a firm hand. We younger men respectfully demurred to such of the Baron's 

 decisions as ignored the importance of, say, timbers, and Mr. Deane and I were the 

 first to insist that the timber is a part of the plant for descriptive botanical purposes, 

 as important, in its way, as the flowering or fruiting twig. At this time, and for some 

 years previously, I had been busy getting together the collection of logs for the 

 Technological Museum (of which I was Curator, and de facto founder) matched with 

 herbarium specimens collected from the identical trees which produced the logs. 



The " E. saligna " referred to included, in those days, the subsequently 

 described E. propinqua Deane and Maiden, and E. Deanei Maiden, both of which were, 

 after intervals of years, returned to us as E. saligna var. by Mueller. The reference 

 to E. goniocalyx referred to the inclusion of E. elceophora with it. 



