WATTLES AND WATTLE-BABES. 
2 I 
It will be noticed that in three cases, Nos. 2, 7, and 11, the results o£ 
analysis are slightly lower than that of the bark gathered from the butt of 
the same tree, but in the case of No. 0 the result is slightly higher, the 
appearance of the bark when powdered, of No. 8, was too dark to be first 
class, while that of No. 9 was the best of the whole thirteen samples, and 
gives the best result. 
The powder from the bark of the limb is generally of a lighter colour 
than that taken from the butt, although the powders of Nos. 5, 10, and 12 
were very light for bark taken from the trunk of the tree. 
The bark of No. 3 was not first class, being far too fibrous. 
In Part III of the Forest Flora of South Australia , by .1. E. Brown, the 
following analyses of this bark by Mr. G. A. Goyder, Superintendent of 
the Crown Lands Laboratory at Adelaide. The localities are all South 
Australian. 
Locality where 
grown, elevation, &c. 
Character of soil 
upon which grown. 
Age of tree. 
Weight of bark 
from each tree. 
Thickness of 
bark. 
Portion of tree from 
which taken. 
o 
o . 
fi 
£ c 
o * 
<u 
Ch 
Government Farm— 
Yrs. 
lbs. 
in. 
Belair, elevation 
Sandy loam, -with 
( trunk wood 
1,000 ft. 
clay sub-soil ... 
G 
45 
0-22 
3 and £ 
o'* U 
£•1 
Bo 
do 
6 
— 
— 
(. bark of twigs, j 
0 I 
Torrens Island— 
Almost sea-lovel. 
Deep sandv soil.. 
5 
38 
0-23 
Trunk . 
252 
Do 
do 
5 
0*04 
Twifs... 
21-7 
Bundaleer Forest— 
Elevation, 1,800 ft... 
Ferruginous loam, 
with clay sub- 
soil. 
7 
128 
0-20 
Trunk . 
31-4 
Do 
do 
7 
005 
Twigs. 
22*3 
Semaphore — 
20 ft. above sea-level 
Abt. 
Deep sand. 
30 
307 
0*18 
Trunk . 
25*8 
Brighton— 
20 ft. to 30 ft. above 
sea-level . 
Clay soil . 
G 
0-21 
Trunk . 
28-7 
Do 
do . 
6 
0-03 
Twiss. 
253 
Mount Gambier. 
Calcareous sand.. 
7 
— 
0-13 
Trunk . 
31*7 
2 « 
II 
o 
H 
55-3 
20*5 
4G-5 
40-8 
49-9 
45-G 
42-6 
53*4 
41-6 
52-0 
I am of opinion that these analyses rather under-rate the value of Acacia 
pycnantlia bark, but this is of course erring in the right direction. 
Mr. J. E. Brown, of South Australia, who is probably the greatest expert 
on wattle cultivation that we have, has gone in for this species very largely 
in districts found suitable for it, and his general remarks on wattle cultiva¬ 
tion (ante) were chiefly written with this species in view. 
“ Except in very dry localities, this species is common to nearly all districts 
of South Australia north of Encounter Bay, and is occasionally to be met 
with along the coast from Kingston to the Glenelg River. Its principal 
habitat, however, and the one where the thoroughly typical botanical form 
