(F.v.M., in Trans. Vic. Inst., 34, 1855.) White Gum.

Systematic. - A small tree, seldom more than 30 feet in height, with a smooth bark. Abnormal leaves broad, nearly ovate. Normal leaves lanceolate, thick, or coriaceous, about 5 inches long and 1 inch broad; intramarginal vein removed from the edge, venation obscure, but inclined at about 450 to the mid-rib. Oil glands not apparent. Flowers in paniculate umbels of about three to five flowers. Calyx tube tapering, short pedicel; operculum blunt, conical, much shorter than the calyx tube.

Fruit.- Conoidal, wrinkled, shining; rim thin, horizontal, often with transverse cracks; valves inserted, about 4 lines long and 2 lines broad. In one form the fruit is inclined to be semi-ovate; rim double, the inner being deciduous.

These fruits so resemble those of E. paniculata that on morphological grounds it was long confounded with that species. They also are not unlike E. polyanthemos and E. Fletcheri, in a few instances.

Habitat. - Victoria and South Australia.

REMARKS. - Mueller described this tree in Trans. Vic. Inst., vol. 34, but Bentham, 1866, "Flora Australiensis," vol. iii, p. 212, synonymises it under E. paniculata. Mueller in his " Eucalyptographia," 1879, concurs in such a classification, but Maiden, in Trans. Roy. Soc S. Ana., 1908, p. 280, shows that these two are distinct, and as this is not an " Ironbark," they should be separated. It is another instance proving that something more is required in the specific determination of F.ucalypts than a morphological comparison of the leaves, fruits. etc. J. E. Brown figures and describes it in his " Forest Flora of South Australia." p. 46, under the name of E. paniculata. There can be no doubt that the flowers, leaves and fruits there figured much resemble E. paniculata, and there is also a strong connection in the chemistry of the oils of the two species, but the timbers, bark, and habitat well indicate the specific differences.

ESSENTIAL OIL. Material consisting of leaves and terminal branchlets Was received for distillation from the Conservator of Forests of South Australia (Mr. Walter Gill), in December, 1911.

The yield of oil was 0.02 per cent., only 1 oz. of oil being obtained from 329 lb. of material. The species is thus a very poor oil-producing Eucalypt. The crude oil was somewhat mobile, of a dark-amber colour, and with an odour indicating an oil of the pinene-cineol group. The amount of cineol was small; certainly not more than about 15 per cent, of that constituent being present. The saponification number for the esters and free acid was 22.1, which, for an alcohol belonging to the C10HI7OH series, in combination with acetic acid, represents 77 per cent. of ester. The odour of the separated oil was not distinctive, and did not indicate geraniol, so that the identity of the alcohol is at present in doubt. Possibly it may be terpineol.

The crude oil had specific gravity at 15o C. = 0.9041; rotation aD + 6.3°; refractive index at 20o = 1.4789, and was scarcely soluble in 10 volumes 80 per cent, alcohol.

The small amount of oil at our disposal did not permit of more extensive investigation, and distillation results were not obtained. The species has no value as an oil producing tree, the yield of oil being so small.

The results obtained with the oil of this species were published by us in the Trans. Roy. Soc, South Australia, 1916.