172 



Mr. E. H. Wilson (Assistant Director of the Arnold Arboretum), in his interesting 

 series of articles on his botanical travels in " The Garden Magazine " (New York) for 

 May, 1923, p. 186, points out that " E. obliqua is not only the type of the genus, but 

 also the first species introduced (into England), and this prior to the founding of the 

 genus and the naming of this species from Nelson's (and Anderson's) material by 

 L'Heritier." 



(b) Subsequent Eucalyptus Notes. — The year 1788 was also the date of the 

 foundation of Sydney, but by the close of the century only about a dozen species had 

 been described, and all (with the exception of obliqua) came from Port Jackson. Then 

 came the stay of Robert Brown at Sydney, and his longer Australian voyages, chiefly 

 of circumnavigation; his Eucalyptus material is referred to below. Next in order 

 we have the collections of Sieber, which were exclusively made in New South Wales, 

 and which were described in the twenties under the auspices of A. P. de Candolle; 

 together with the collections of Allan Cunningham, partly made in New South Wales. 

 Eucalypts from that State (or Colony, as it was then) were described by other botanists 

 in the early part of the nineteenth century, and, being the oldest settled Colony, and 

 the principal seat of Government for many years, it is not surprising that most of the 

 early Eucalyptus work was based on New South Wales material; that of Tasmania 

 and Western Australia followed. 



Andrews' " Botanical Repository," 1799-1801 (10 volumes, 4to.) contains some 

 figures of Eucalypts. 



Robert Brown was in Australia from 1800-4. 



" Of the National Australian genus Eucalyptus only six species are referred to by Brown in his 

 Collected Works. Hooker says Brown returned to England with the description of his plants written out 1 . 

 If so, he had described in MSS. 100 species of Eucalypts 2 . These were, of course, not published. What 

 became of the MSS. ? And how is it that Brown's successors have had to worry out Eucalypts without 

 any help from Brown, who had such great opportunities, and who was the first botanist of his age ? The 

 world is poorer through not knowing the views of Brown on such a widely diffused and difficult genus. 

 Hooker 3 speaks of plants in Brown's care ' during half a century . . .' they, 4 together with the rest 

 of his magnificent collections were jealously closed to botanists." 



" The reason why Bentham did not consult the British Museum herbarium for the ' Flora 

 Australiensis ' (the fact has been pointed out by you) 5 , was probably the result of Brown's attitude in years 

 gone by." (Maiden in " Sir Joseph Banks, the Father of Australia," p. 42.) 



1 Proc, Linn, Soc, 1886-7, p. 58. 



'Flinders' "Voyage to Terra Australis," ii (Apendix), p. 547. 



3 Icones PI., vol. iv (3rd Series), p. 16. 



* Presumably 1810-1858 (year of Brown's death). 



' I am given to understand that I am wrong here. Bentham consulted the herbarium, or at least part of it, but 

 not the Banksian plates (? the Solander MSS.). " Some of the Orders in Brown's herbarium, which Bentham wanted to 

 consult for the Australian flora, were mislaid and could not be found." (1873, Daydon Jackson's "Life of Bentham," 

 p. 226). See also p. 61 infra. 



