Critical revision of the genus eucalyptus Volume 1: Parts 1-10 Maiden, J. H. (Joseph Henry) (1859-1925) University of Sydney Library Sydney, Australia 2002 http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/oztexts © University of Sydney Library. The texts and images are not to be used for commercial purposes without permission Source Text: Prepared from the print edition of Parts 1-10 Critical revision of the genus eucalyptus, published by William Applegate Gullick Sydney 1909. 349pp. All quotation marks are retained as data. First Published: 1909 583.42 Australian Etext Collections at botany prose nonfiction 1890-1909 Critical revision of the genus eucalyptus volume 1 (Government Botanist of New South Wales and Director of the Botanic Gardens, Sydney) “Ages are spent in collecting materials, ages more in separating and combining them. Even when a system has been formed, there is still something to add, to alter, or to reject. Every generation enjoys the use of a vast hoard bequeathed to it by antiquity, and transmits that hoard, augmented by fresh acquisitions, to future ages. In these pursuits, therefore, the first speculators lie under great disadvantages, and, even when they fail, are entitled to praise.” Macaulay's “Essay on Milton” Sydney William Applegate Gullick, Government Printer 1909 Preface. DURING the twenty years that have elapsed since the publication of Mueller's “Eucalyptographia,” which added valuable information to Bentham's masterly account of the genus Eucalyptus in the Flora Australiensis, we have obtained a large accession of facts. It seems to me that the time has arrived when these additional facts should be incorporated with the labours of the old workers. I have spared neither time nor expense to obtain access to the types. I have spent many years in field observations on the genus in every State of the Commonwealth (though of course particularly in my own State of New South Wales), and thus have endeavoured to secure what is an essential qualification for the study of this protean genus. The admirable illustrations contained in the “Eucalyptographia” have the defect that it is not always possible to say precisely what they depict—that is to say, whether a type or co- type, or, if neither, the exact locality whence the originals were obtained. In all cases I shall inform my readers as to the history of the specimens depicted. A very important departure in a work of this kind is the following:—While expressing my opinions as to affinities, synonyms, &c., I shall in all cases give the original descriptions of the species whether considered to be synonyms or not. In this way my readers will be able to weigh the evidence for themselves, and, if they do not concur in my conclusions, they will at least be placed in possession of the data on which they are based. The genus Eucalyptus is the most important in Australia. The individuals which comprise it are all pervading, while the number of species and varieties is very large. As the work proceeds I will give my views as to the grouping of the species. The present part contains much prefatory matter referring to the genus. Then one species is taken in detail, and the other species will be treated in a like manner, the facts being grouped in the same way. The rapidity with which this work can be issued depends mainly on the plates; I have only the partial services of one artist. J.H.M. Botanic Gardens, Sydney, January, 1903. Part I Critical Revision of the Genus Eucalyptus Part I J. H. Maiden 1903 A Critical Revision of the Genus Eucalyptus. A.—Variation in the Genus. THE genus Eucalyptus is such a large one that a number of schemes have been submitted for dividing it into sections with a view of associating those closely allied, or for arriving at the name of a species with facility. These schemes will be referred to in the bibliography, and I now propose to review each character, from timber to another, to see if any satisfactory scheme can be evolved. In the Proc. Aust. Assoc. for Adv. of Science, Sydney Meeting, 1898, Professor Tate* and Mr. Luehmann simultaneously gave prominence to the use of the fruit for purposes of classification. Both papers take cognizance of other characters as well. Both are the work of men who know the genus, and are valuable contributions to knowledge. Habit.—Tate defines two habits of growth, viz:—Trees, and shrubby, stocky trees, to which he applies the vernacular names of gums and mallees, names well understood in Australia. He points out that in young plants of the genus there is a large inflation of the base of the stem, either at the surface or just below the surface of the soil. In gums (E. rostrata, leucoxylon, viminalis, &c.) this is eventually outgrown; but in the mallees (incrassata, uncinata, &c.) it persists and increases in size proportionately with the development of the branches which are emitted from it—in the mallee this rudely globose bole is partly subterranean. “The umbrella-like disposition of the foliage of the taller mallees may be largely incidental to overcrowding, though it would seem to be an inherited character, as it is fairly pronounced in them when they are distinctly separated from one another.” This classification is chiefly of practical use in Professor Tate's own State (South Australia) and in Western Australia. It is, however, very difficult to group the species according to habit. Some are dwarf in their typical forms, but under different circumstances they take on a larger growth. Then, speaking generally, such species as are found in damp situations in good soil are umbrageous trees; such, for example, are stellulaat, aggregata, Macarthuri, but this character is largely a matter of environment. Then some species, e.g., viminalis, have a more or less drooping habit as a rule, but this species is often nearly erect in less congenial soil. And further, to show variation in habit, we have only to point to the Eucalyptus plantations of California and the South of France, where the species are cultivated almost out of recognition. Bark.—Mueller (Journ. Linn. Soc., iii, 99, 1858) arranged the genus in the following six groups in respect to their barks. With the additional information we have obtained since Mueller's paper was published, we are able to recast his list of examples. It will be found, however, that no two botanists agree as to the sections in which to place some of the species, and as further field-knowledge is available and we know more about the variation of the bark in the same species, the same authority modifies his own lists. See Woolls, “On the classification of the Eucalypts” (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (2), vi, 60). “i. Leiophloioe.—Cortex post delapsum strati supremi undique laevis. (Vulgo, flooded gum trees, white gum trees, blue gum trees partim, red gum trees partim, yarra trees.)” Smooth barks (“gums” we call them).—Examples are—E. hoemastoma, tereticornis, rostrata, leucoxylon, viminalis, Gunnii, maculata, latifolia, aspera, stellulata, coriacea, saligna, Behriana, punctata, stricta, fasciculosa. “ii. Hemiphloioe.—Cortex in trunci parte inferiore persistens rugosus et rimosus, in parte superiore ramisque delapsu strati superioris laevigatus. (Vulgo, Moreton Bay ash, blackbutted gum tree, box trees partim.)” Half barks, the barks of the lower part of the trunk persistent and the upper part smooth. Examples are—E. hemiphloia, pilularis, bicolor, longifolia, melliodora, amygdalina, dives. The Moreton Bay Ash (tesselaris) is better in section iii or vi. “iii. Rhytiphloioe.—Cortex ubique persistens rugosus et rimosus intus solidus. (Vulgo, bloodwood trees, box trees partim, peppermint trees partim.)” With wrinkled persistent bark, rather solid. This is an unsatisfactory group, including heterogenous barks. Mueller intended it to include the bloodwoods (corymbosa, eximia, trachyphloia), also bicolor (which is better in ii) and E. microtheca, leptophleba, ferruginea. Odorata, robusta, botryoides may be added, and also Stuartiana, pulverulenta, microcorys, acmenioides, resinifera, polyanthema, populifolia, piperita. Nos. ii and iii run into each other, and both of them into No. iv. “iv. Pachyphloioe.—Cortex ubique persistens rugosus intus fibrosus. (Vulgo, stringybark trees.)” “Stringybarks,” with persistent, fibrous barks. A good natural group, including eugenioides, capitellata, macrorrhyncha, obliqua, pilularis var. Muelleriana, tetrodonta. “v. Schizophloioe.—Cortex ubique persistens profunde sulcatus intus solidus. (Vulgo, ironbark trees.)” “Ironbarks,” with hard, deeply-furrowed barks. Perhaps the best of all the groups. Examples—E. siderophloia, paniculata, crebra, sideroxylon, melanophloia. “vi. Lepidophloioe.—Cortex saltem in trunco persistens lamellaris friabilis. (Vulgo, melaleuca gum trees, mica trees.)”* With persistent bark on the trunk only, and forming scaly separate pieces. Mueller's examples are miniata (aurantiaca), phoenicea, peltata (melissiodora), to which I would add tesselaris. The Rev. Dr. Woolls (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., vi, 709) ignores section vi, and it certainly cannot be separately maintained as a section. The cortical classification separates trees that are closely allied, e.g., hemiphloia and Baueriana, the first being a half bark, and the latter having rough bark to the branchlets. Similarly E. pilularis in its normal form has smooth branchlets, while its variety Muelleriana has rough branchlets. It places in juxtaposition those that are not closely related, as will be observed from the examples given under each section. Prominent examples are:— (a) E. paniculata, Sm., and E. fasciculosa, F.v.M.; and (b) E. sideroxylon, A. Cunn., and E. leucoxylon, F.v.M., respectively, nearly alike in leaves, flowers, and fruits, but utterly dissimilar in bark and wood. Absolute anomalies as regards barks are those of ironbark for E. stellulata, Sieberiana, and viminalis; a box-like bark for E. tereticornis, and observers will note many other anomalies within their own experience.