194 R. T. BAKER AND H. G. SMITH. 



reached the end of our investigations, nothing further 

 remains than to publish the results which are given in this 

 paper. 



II. Historical. 

 The first species described under the generic name 

 Melaleuca was M. leucadendron by Linnaeus in Mantiss., 

 105, 1767, from Indian specimens. 



There had been imported into Europe from the East, 

 about the beginning of the seventeenth century an oil under 

 the name of "Cajoepoeli" (according to Linnaeus' spelling, 

 infra) but under a later spelling "Cajuput." At that time 

 and long after its introduction, the botanical origin was 

 ascribed to Linnaeus' species (supra), as the specimens 

 forwarded to Linnaeus were reputed to be taken from trees 

 from which the oil was obtained, and he evidently described 

 it under that impression, as shown by his original specimen 

 now in the possession of the London Linnean Society and 

 labelled by him "Cajoepoeli" and afterwards by Smith as 

 Melaleuca leucadendron, vera, a photograph of which is 

 reproduced at the end of this paper, Plate VIII. 



This reputed origin of the oil, however, was shown later 

 by Roxburgh to be an error, and that the true source of 

 *' Cajuput" was a Melaleuca which he named M, cajuputi, 

 but this was found later to be identical with M. minor, 

 described earlier in 1813 by Smith in Rees' Cyclop., Vol. 

 xxin, and so quite a distinct tree from that to which 

 Linnaeus had given the above name. However, many 

 European systematists in the last century regarded the two 

 as one, but the early Indian botanists being very emphatic 

 over the matter, always kept them distinct, and our 

 investigations support the latter botanists. 



Since the original description by Linnaeus was published, 

 several species have been described which had the general 

 facies of his tree but differed in some important characters. 



