382 



many years. For instance, in Trans. Aust. Assoc. Adv. Sci., viii, 229 (1901), he has a 

 paper " On the Constancy of specific characters of the genus Eucalyptus,*' and he has 

 converted Mr. H. G. Smith to this point of view in their joint deductions on the results 

 of work on Eucalyptus oils. 



I controverted this position in J own. Hoy. Soc. N.S.W., xxxviii, 332 (1904), 

 under the heading " Has variation in Eucalyptus now ceased? " and briefly in Part 

 VIII, p. 247, of the present work under the title " Reputed Constancy of characters in 

 Eucalyptus." 



The longer I live and study plants in the bush and the botanic garden, facts 

 crowd upon me which point to the truth of the beautiful dogma of the infinite variation 

 of living organisms. Messrs. Baker and Smith not only hold a contrary view, but, from 

 some of the following passages in their work (2nd Edition), they make pointed refer- 

 ence to a suppositious type of " morphologist " who, so far as Australia is concerned, 

 has long passed away. Under this name a type of botanist is referred to who is assumed 

 to rely upon the physical characters of organs exclusively. I shall refer to the subject 

 more in detail at p. 390. 



Following are references to several passages in Messrs. Baker and Smith's work : — 



(a) The chapter (p. 7) is headed — 



'"Comparative Constancy of specific characters." They go on, "The reputed or supposed great 

 variation of individual Eucalyptus species lias arisen probably by the attempts of botanists to found 

 species on morphological characters alone." 



The same phrase is used at p. 8. 



(b) At p. 7 the authors say — 



" The most serious objections to Bentham's anthereal system are : — 



1. That of placing in the same group and in juxtaposition, species which to those familiar with the 

 trees in the field, are perfectly distinct from each other, and 



2. That of separating under various sections trees which by bark, wood, habit, general characters, 

 chemical properties of their oils, kinos, dyes, &c, ought to stand near each other . . ." 



And then Messrs. Baker and Smith proceed, on the strength of some very general 

 remarks of the late Rev. Dr. Woolls, to compare his work on Eucalyptus with that of 

 the immortal Bentham, to the detriment of the latter. And when we bear in mind 

 that Bentham was never in Australia, and that he had to depend on herbarium material 

 (often very imperfect) and notes of collectors, it is simply marvellous what he accom- 

 plished in classification. His anthereal system is still invaluable. 



This criticism of Bentham's placing in juxtaposition some species not naturally 

 closely related to each other, comes ill from authors who propound a number of groups 

 based on oils, and obtain unnatural combinations in the process. 



Bentham is again soundly trounced at p. 8 for relying on herbarium specimens, 

 which were all he had to rely upon (over fifty years ago), and if they had been complete, 

 with reliable notes as to habit, bark, and timber, it is not likely he would have made any 

 mistake at all. I, as one of the pioneers in insisting on the use of all the characters 



