NOTES ON EUCALYPTUS. 465 



I did wrong in temporarily suppressing E. numerosa; 

 it is a distinct species. This step originally arose through 

 accepting the view of Bentham (B. Fl. iii, 203) that E» 

 racliata included the plant which we know as E. numerosa. 



Use of botanical names for trade purposes. — Messrs, 

 Baker and Smith (p. 515) put in a plea for the use of 

 botanical names for commercial products, a view I have 

 actively supported for many years, but if this principle be 

 not very judiciously applied, instead of good resulting, the 

 divorce between the Eucalyptus nomenclature of botanists 

 and that of commercial men will be widened. In the case 

 of a species name such as Eucalyptus globulus, and a very 

 large number, indeed the vast majority of species, there 

 are no differences of opinion as to validity; in other words, 

 the scientific name can be used for timber or oil or any 

 other branch of commercial nomenclature with perfect 

 safety. But the use of such a name as Eucalyptus aus- 

 traliana, which has not one, but many synonyms, is on a 

 different footing, and its use for trade purposes leads to the 

 very confusion we all desire to avoid. A firm receives this 

 name in perfectly good faith, indeed it may not have the 

 knowledge on which to form an independent opinion; oil is 

 supplied under that name to its numerous customers. The 

 name becomes involved in trade-transactions, and, having 

 once adopted it, a firm naturally becomes unwilling to 

 withdraw it. In other words, a non-botanist takes sides, 

 and he is actuated by one of the strongest of human motives, 

 pecuniary interest, and there is no doubt that, money being 

 at stake, the commercial name will be closely adhered to, 

 to an extent measured by the demand for the oil, irrespec- 

 tive of any evidence the dissentient botanist may adduce. 

 This unfortunate state of affairs, which may obstruct 

 endeavours to arrive at a settled nomenclature, is always 

 liable to take place in the case of acceptance of any botanical 



Dd— December 5, 1917. 



