Critical Revision of the Genus Eucalyptus Volume 4: Parts 31-40
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Critical revision of the genus eucalyptus Volume 4: Parts 31-40 Maiden, J. H. (Joseph Henry) (1859-1925) University of Sydney Library Sydney 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 31-40 Critical revision of the genus eucalyptus, published by William Applegate Gullick Sydney 1920. 343pp. All quotation marks are retained as data. First Published: 1920 583.42 Australian Etext Collections at botany prose nonfiction 1910-1939 Critical revision of the genus eucalyptus volume 4 (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 1920 Part 31 CLVIII. E. tereticornis Smith. IN Zoology and Botany of New Holland, by G. Shaw and J. E. Smith, Vol i, p. 41 (1793). FOLLOWING is the original:— E. tereticornis, operculo conico tereti laevissimo calyce triplo longiori, umbellis lateralibus solitariis. Lid conical, round, very smooth, thrice as long as the calyx. Umbels lateral, solitary. The lid of this species is remarkably smooth and polished, not wrinkled even in the dry specimen; it often breaks off a little above the base, leaving its thin lower part like a loose ring round the calyx. The leaves are lanceolate. In the Transactions of the Linnean Society iii, 284 (1797) the same author says:— Remarkable for its long, very smooth, membranous operculum, which bursts just above the base, leaving the lower part like a ring sticking for some time to the calyx. The leaves are lanceolate and oblique. Then it is described in DC. Prod. iii, 216 (1828), in Latin, in which the original is a little amplified. Mueller in Journ. Linn. Soc. iii, 83 (1859) re-described the species in Latin, giving E. subulata A. Cunn., as a synonym. Then it was described by Bentham in B. Fl. iii, 242, and later on by Mueller in “Eucalyptographia” with a plate. In this plate there are three twigs; the middle and right hand ones are those of E. tereticornis; the left hand one is that of E. Bancrofti Maiden. It is a large tree, often 150 feet in height, and 6 feet in diameter at butt. It is seldom found growing in a swamp, but where it does, it does not take on the characters of allied associated forms which prefer moister surroundings. The leaves have usually well-marked veins, and contain very little essential oil. The timber is straight and mostly sound, and is regarded as valuable both for the mill and for fencing. Following are notes on three individual trees of this species in the Outer Domain and Botanic Gardens, Sydney. They were not planted by the hand of man, and are growing close to where the type was obtained. 1. Outer Domain, near Mrs. Macquarie's Chair. Young foliage thin, medium lanceolate, smells like orange blossom, very sweet. 2. A single tree in the north-eastern part of the Botanic Gardens (near the Cycad bed). Juvenile foliage broad and triplinerved. Intermediate and even mature foliage inclined to be triplinerved. (A reference photo of tree was taken March, 1908). 3. Outer Domain, near foot of Governor-General's steps. Juvenile leaves medium lanceolate. Branchlets nearly winged. These three trees, growing within a few hundred yards of each other, differ in flowering period, in habit and bark, in addition to the differences already indicated. E. tereticornis is described at some length by Naudin, 6° Série, Bot. T. xvi, p. 398 (1883). Quoted as 1st Mém. He lays special stress on its variability. It is variable, even with the strict definition of the species; it must also be borne in mind that, until recently, E. tereticornis was looked upon as including E. amplifolia Naudin, E. Bancrofti Maiden, E. dealbata A. Cunn. and even other species. We are gradually becoming better acquainted with the life histories of various forms of Eucalyptus. The group, of which E. tereticornis is the best known member, is apparently in a state of flux, but it is believed that my attempt to classify the forms will be suggestive. This is no exception to the rule that obtains in other groups that the individuality of species varies. But in order to handle these forms at all, to avoid interminable and indefinite verbiage, it is desirable to establish names by which to refer to the most important of them. The tereticornis group will be referred to again when the second part of this work is reached, which will deal with phylogenetic problems. It is to be noted that the common name for E. tereticornis differs in New South Wales and Queensland. People here and there give other names, but in New South Wales the vast majority call it “Red Gum” and in Queensland “Blue Gum.” At the same time the use of these names has been evolutionary; in New South Wales the names “Blue Gum” and “Grey Gum” for this species were both in use as late as half a century ago. For example, this is the species referred to by Sir William Macarthur in his Catalogue of Woods at the Paris Exhibition, 1855 (No. 92), and the London Exhibition of 1862 (No. 19), as the “Blue Gum of Camden.” In the catalogues of both exhibitions the native name in the Illawarra is given as “Tdjetlat,” or “Tjellat,” and also “Barroul-goura,” while in the latter catalogue the name is given as “Yarrah” at Camden. In this connection, the names given by George Caley (Botanical Collector in New South Wales, 1800–1810), as quoted in my paper in the Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. for 1903, p. 989, may be referred to. According to Caley's specimens, received from the British Museum, the names “Barilgora” or “Berigora” applied to E. hemiphloia F.v.M. are sufficiently near to those of Macarthur, to cause comment. Caley gives the names of “Burringora” and “Yarro” for E. tereticornis and these have some similarity to those quoted by Macarthur half a century later. It is a matter for very great regret that the aboriginal names of our native trees were not systematically recorded, but, of course, very little was done with unravelling Eucalyptus in the early days. But the trouble could have been got over by collecting specimens and carefully numbering them; identifications would have followed in process of time. Synonyms. 1. Leptospermum umbellatum Gaertner, de Fructibus, &c., i, 174, tab. xxxv. 2. Metrosideros salicifolia Solander (fide Gaertner); non Gaertner. 3. E. populifolia Desf. probably. 4. E. subulata A. Cunn., Schauer in Walp. Rep. ii, 924. 5. E. insulana F. M. Bailey. 3. E. populifolia Desf. (a) Following is the original description:— Eucalyptus populifolia.—Ramis laevibus; foliis petiolatis, alternis, cordato-orbiculatis, muticis et mucronulatis. Facies E. cordati Labillardière; differt foliis petiolatis. Non floruit. Desf. (Cat. Pl. Hort. Par. ed. 3, 1829, p. 408.) (b) It is next referred to in Walper's Repertorium ii, 927. (c) Mueller refers to the name:— “Eucalyptus populnea (E. populifolia Hook, in Mitch. Trop. Austral. p. 204, non Desfont.) (Journ. Linn. Soc. iii, 93). (d) Mueller again refers to E. populifolia Desfont. in “Eucalyptographia” under E. populifolia. In the journal above quoted (Journ. Linn. Soc. iii, 93), “I had changed the name of this species (E. populifolia, Hook.) to E. populnea, as Desfontaines had mentioned (Catal. Hort. Paris, 1829, p. 408), already an Eucalyptus under precisely the same name employed by Hooker.” (See Vol. iii, p. 93, of the present work.) (e) Bentham (B. Fl. iii, 200) includes E. populifolia Desf. in a list of species he recommends to be entirely discarded. But our knowledge of individual species has advanced since then. (f) Mr. James Britten, then of the Department of Botany of the British Museum, entered into correspondence with me on the subject early in 1900. (g) In 1902 I received from the Vienna herbarium a twig, in juvenile foliage, labelled.— “Eucalyptus populifolia Hort. Celsian. Ex horto dom. Cels. Parisiis 1820 sub. nom. indic. et E. aromatica.” I understand this is Desfontaines’ species, and it is E. tereticornis Sm. or close to it. This is as much as I can say, and I place the statement on record for what it is worth. In a few years I confidently expect that the determination of a species of Eucalyptus from a twig of juvenile foliage will present no difficulty. 4. E. subulata A. Cunn. Arborea ramulis laxis angulatis; foll. coriaceis lanceolatis subfalcatis in petiolum attenuatis: longe acuminatis utrinq. pallidis opacisq. pellucido-punctatis, margine crassiusculo cinctis; pedunculis axillarib. lateralibq. ancipitib. petiolum subaequantib. 4–6 floris pedicellis angulatis cupula sub-triplo longiorib., operculo membranaceo supra basin contracto tereti-subulato cupula brevi cyathiformi quintuplo longiori. Foliorum lamina 3–5 poll., petiolus 9 lin., operculum 7 lin. par longum. In Nova Cambria australi. White Gum of Moreton Bay. (Schauer in Walper's Repert. ii, 924.) “Eucalyptus subulata C. (Cunningham) near E. resinifera. White Gum of Moreton Bay, 50–60 feet, 1818.” The above label in Allan Cunningham's handwriting is in Herb. Cant., ex Herb. Lindl. 5. E. insulana F.