31 
Callitris is synonymous with the Frenela of Mirbel, who, in 1826, substituted 
the name Frenela on account of the similarity of sound between Callitris and 
Calythrix ! 
The well-known North African tree (often known as C. quadrivalvis), which 
produces the Sandarac of commerce, is recognised by Masters, the great authority 
on the Coniferce, under Bentliam’s name Tetraclinis (T. articulata). 
Following shows the synonymy of the genus :— 
Frenela, Mirb., in Mem. Mus. Par. xiii (1826), 30 ; Pachylepis, Brongn. in 
Ann. Sc. Nat. Ser. I, xxx (1833), 189; Fresnelia , Steud. Norn. ed. II, i, 648 (1840); 
Parolinia, Endl. Gen. Suppl. i, 1372 (1811); Widdringtonia, Endl. 1. c. ii, 25 
(1842); Leichhardtia, Sheph. Cat. PI. Cult. Sydn. (1851), 15; Octoclinis,P. Muell. 
in Trans. Phil. Inst. Viet, ii (1858), 21; Actinostrobus, E. Muell. Rep. Burdek. 
Exp., 19. 
In Australia there are thirteen species of Callitris , and some of them have 
varieties more or less marked, so that there are a goodly number of Australian 
Cypress Pines. Pour of the species ( Roei, Drummondii, Actinostrobus, and 
acuminata ) are confined to Western Australia. C. oblonga is only found in 
Tasmania. Callitris is exceedingly variable over our territory of millions of square 
miles, and interpretation of some of the forms must he carried out in a philosophic 
spirit. It is impossible to take one character and insist too strongly upon it. I 
agree with Robert Brown that the fruit is the best indication in this genus. But 
the fruits vary, as I shall abundantly show ; so also do the branchlets, and every 
other part of the plant. Field knowledge is indispensable to a proper understanding 
of this genus. 
Habit. —As a very general rule the trees are of a neat pyramidal shape, 
e.g., C. robust a. Sometimes they are of a more or less pendent habit at the top, 
e.g., C. cupressiformis. C. verrucosa is usually without a main stem, forming a 
congeries of thin stems from a woody stock, somewhat after the fashion of a malice. 
Foliage. —I use this term to include the branchlets. The foliage is dimorphic 
in some species. This is particularly observable in C. Macleayana. Bentham also 
observed it in C. calcarata ( Frenela Endlicheri), “ which has frequently acicular 
leaves on the lower branches.” I have noticed a similar case in C. Muelleri. So 
far as I know, these are the only three species of which dimorphism has been 
recorded, but extended observation will doubtless augment the list. 
C. robusta is the only species with almost invariably glaucous foliage ; the 
other species vary in the depth of tint of green, though some, e.g., verrucosa, are 
occasionally glaucous. 
I see no advantage in making a drawing of the foliage of each species, as 
there is a considerable amount of similarity between them. 
