IS EUCALYPTUS VARIABLE 1 339 



bicolor, and on these grounds it is contended that the two trees 

 should be regarded as distinct species. The only resemblance is 

 the venation of the lanceolate form of leaf. If placed under E. 

 largiflorens, then there would be the anomaly of having under one 

 species a tree with two kinds of timber, two kinds of oil, and a 

 variation in leaves." 1 



This argument is, however based on wrong determinations. 

 I have shown, on morphological grounds and reference 

 to the actual types, ( Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 1902), 

 that the E. bicolor referred to above is E. Boslstoana, 

 F.v.M., and that the E. pendula referred to is really 

 E. bicolor, A. Cunn., thus some of the deductions based 

 on the assumption that his determinations are correct, fall 

 to the ground. 



Again Messrs. Baker and Smith have in this Journal 

 added a new species to science (Eucalyptus apiculata, Baker 

 and Smith), in the following words : — 



"The oil obtained from a Mallee 2 known as E. stricta was differ" 

 ent from that obtained from the supposed E. stricta growing 

 around Berrima and Mittagong, but it was not possible to separate 

 them on any known botanical characters, as no morphological 

 differences could be detected, but the fact remained that the oils 

 were different and always so . thus we propose to make 



the Berrima form distinct, and give it specific rank under the 

 name of Eucalyptus apiculata." 3 



Surely this cuts at the very foundations of systematic 

 botany. If two plants are morphologically identical one 

 may be substituted for the other. 



The plants to which Mr. Baker refers have been known 

 to botanists for many years and they have agreed with 

 Mr. Baker that "no morphological differences can be 

 detected" between E. stricta, Sieb., and E. apiculata, Baker 

 and Smith. As Mr. Baker has stated that the two plants 



1 Op. cit. z It is not a true Mallee. 3 This Journal, xxxv., 121, 122. 



