Guru " lias become considerable, I have below given full notes made in the field by 
my collector and by other observers, and add the following report from him, which 
was written in the field : 
With reference to your instructions to collect all available evidence in regard to Red Box and 
Slaty Gum, I respectfully report that I went to Tallewang (some G miles from Gulgong), out towards 
Cobborah, where it grows to fine tall trees on the ridgy ground near to the Reedy Creek ; at Gulgong it 
grows all around the district of a much more stunted growth. At Lue it grows (large trees) about 5-6 
miles in a western direction from the railway line ; the more stunted forms oscur all around the 
immediate district of Lue. There again at Rylstone, some 5 miles on the Ilford Road, it again reaches to 
tine trees. (The Lue and Rylstone trees probably E. polyanthemos. J.H.M.) 
From a personal conviction and from reliable information, the Slaty Gum and Red Box are 
identical. The term " Slaty Gum " is applied to the more robust trees of the " Red Box," from the 
cleaner stems, for these trees have a greater tendency to throw off the bark more regularly, falling in 
ribbons, and not in " scales," so to speak, as in the case of the less healthy trees ; this is not invariably 
the case, as exceptions do constantly occur. This (April) seemingly is the season of the year for shedding 
of the bark. A Mr. Taylor, native of Rylstone (a carpenter), says there is no difference in the timbers or 
in the habit of the trees, " Slaty Gum " being only larger than " Red Box." Mr. James Holmes, Gulgong, 
who pointed out to me the tree at Reedy Creek, calls " Red Gum " and " Slaty Gum " one and the same ; 
Mr. Hatton, living at Coomber, says that " Slaty Gum " is nothing but " Red Box." 
The only scientific way of dealing with two species reputed to be different is 
to look out for points of difference. As regards E. polyanthemos and E, Daicsoni, 
let us try and find them. 
" The late Dr. Wool Is was very emphatic that this tree should be regarded as 
quite distinct from E, polyantliema, with which species it had previously been 
confused" (Baker and Smith, " Research on the Eucalypts," p. 143). The italics 
are mine. I am probably the only botanist who ever conferred with Woolls on the 
subject. His attitude as regards " Slaty Gum " was that of enquiry as to whether 
it differed from " Red Box." His attitude in regard to " Lignum Vitae " (so 
cilled) (afterwards identified with E. Baueriana Schauer) was more doubting, but 
he had not made up his mind. 
Messrs. Baker and Smith's unconscious exaggeration of "Woolls' views in 
regard to the Slaty Gum question certainly helped to unsettle me from accepting 
JB. Dawsoni. There are no grounds for bringing Woolls' testimony forward to 
support the view that E. Daicsoni is an entity distinct from E. ovalifolia var. 
lanceolata. 
The only pertinent allusion in Woolls' writings that I can find is the 
following : 
He is speaking of the " grouping " of Eucalypts, and is reviewing Parts 1 
and 2 of the " Eucalyptographia " and comparing the work with the "Flora 
Australiensis." He does not agree with . . . " the Poplar-leaved rough barked 
Lignum litae on the banks of the Ncpean (being considered) as a form of the 
smooth-barked E. polyanthcina beyond the dividing range . . . Ko one who has 
seen these trees ,in their native haunts and has noticed their striking differences would 
