SOME NEW ENGLAND EUCALYPTS AND THEIR ECONOMICS. 279 



In 1898 full material was obtained by one of us, when 

 the evidence derived from its investigation proved that it 

 had characters sufficient to warrant its being raised to 

 specific rank under the name of E. laevopinea, Proc. Linn. 

 Soc, N.S.W., p. 414. 



Messrs. Deane and Maiden in the same year and in the 

 same proceedings refer to the species as follows: — 



"We have not had sufficient opportunity of examining these 

 trees although we have been favoured with herbarium specimens 

 by Mr. Baker .... we think it is a pity that the chemical pro- 

 ducts of that species E. pilularis had not been enquired into before 

 naming the two new ones." (E. pilularis had been chemically 

 investigated at this time although not published.) 



" We must, however, offer our protest against naming species 

 after recondite properties which can only be recognised after close 

 analysis in the laboratory." 



We are glad to see however, in the " Critical Revision of 

 the Genus Eucalyptus," Part VIII, p. 247, that Mr. Maiden 

 now recognises the value of chemical evidence in determin- 

 ing differences in species. 



Reference is again made to this species, Proc. Linn. Soc, 

 N.S.W., 1901 by Deane and Maiden, in these words: — 



"We find that E. laevopinea, R. T. B , is specifically identical 

 with E. dextropinea, R.T. B., and consequently with E. Mulleriana, 

 Howitt." 



In Part I of the "Critical Revision of the Genus Euca- 

 lyptus," Maiden, places it along with E. dextropinea and 

 E. Muelleriana as a synonym of E. pilularis, Sm. A deter- 

 mination to which we cannot agree as our researches show 

 that the two, E. pilularis and E. laevopinea, differ in timber, 

 bark, fruits, buds, leaves, oil and habitat. 



In Part VIII, same work, E. Muelleriana is restored to 

 specific rank ; and on p. 221, the following reference is 

 made: — 



