14 
It will be remembered that Baron von Ettingshausen, in his “ Contribu¬ 
tions to the Tertiary Flora of Australia.” drew the conclusion that because 
V / 
the so-called “ Australian “ types were deficient among the fossils he 
examined, the Cainozoic flora of Australia differed essentially from the 
flora of the present day. In my presidential address to the Linnean 
Society of New South Wales on 25th March, 1896, I ventured to differ from 
that view, and pointed out that we should not expect to find leaves of 
Eucalypti and Proteaceace abounding in deposits formed from a “brush " vege¬ 
tation ; and later, in a paper entitled u Observations on the Tertiary Flora 
of Australia, &c.,” published in last year’s proceedings of the same society, 
I further explained the attitude I had taken up. The facts now brought 
forward are of value as bearing on this controversy. 
It is to be hoped that fruits of the trees which bore the eucalypt-like 
leaves may be found in the Berwick deposits. The question might thus be 
settled whether the evolution of the genus Eucalyptus had at that time 
already taken place. It must not be overlooked that two of the species of 
the closely allied genus Angophora —namely, A. intermedia, E.C., and 
A. lanceolata , Cav.—have leaves quite like those of Eucalyptus, so that it 
could not with certainty be asserted that the leaf remains in question indi¬ 
cate the existence of Eucalyptus rather than that of Angophora. They might 
be either, or they might have belonged to a common ancestor of both 
genera. 
Specimens from Middle Creek, Wonwron, near Yarram,* Nos. 142 to 159 
inclusive. These are not by any means easy to determine; the structure of 
most of the leaves is not at all clear, but I hope that further and closer 
examination may result in the affinities of some of them, at least, being 
determined. 
I venture to make some suggestions as to the preservation of specimens 
against drying up and falling to pieces. It is essential that the fluid used 
for coating them should be such as not to obliterate the delicate texture of 
the leaf tissues. I believe it has been a common practice in various centres 
to use fish glue or some kind of varnish, but such substances render the finer 
markings invisible. I would suggest to geologists that vaseline be experi¬ 
mented with. I have in my possession some leaf impressions in a white clay 
deposit similar to those from Berwick. I coated them over with vaseline 
soon after obtaining them, and they are just as perfect as when I got them, 
and the leaf impressions are without the objectionable glaze. If the effect of 
the vaseline tends to pass away—which at present I have not observed—it 
■will be very easy to dip them again in warm and liquid vaseline and care¬ 
fully wipe or brush off the surplus that adheres. 
Hunter’s Hill, Sydney, 8th June, 1901. 
* A. E. Kitson, Report on Lignite at Wonwron. Records of Geological Surrey o 
Victoria, I., Part 1, 1902. 
