PLANT LIFE

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 125, 29 May 1934, Page 5

PLANT LIFE

IS IT FOR, THE WORLD ?,

OR" .ONLY FOR HOME OF THE

SPECIES ?

Does economic nationalism include ■ refusal to allow indigenous plants to go out of the country, if such plants are the basis of industry? This question is raised when the New Zealand Government is urged to prohibit the export of flax (phormium) plants, and when the Australian Government is urged to prohibit the export of a species of tea-tree from which a commercial oilis extracted. * '. Mr. A. E. . tenfold, curator of the New. South Wales .Technological Museum, says .that in the past," in .permitting the export of plants, Australia has shown "a generosity that has not,, in some cases, been reciprocated by other countries. v ; 'i• '' - ' » Other persons point out that Australia lives on introduced species (plant and animal).'obtained-from other countries. On May 15 Mr. tenfold stated in Sydney that applications had been made to him by leading Sydney seed merchants for assistance in Australian tea-tree, seeds, from .which essential oils are extracted. The request, said Mr. tenfold, had been refused, as he believed that the seeds were wanted for export,l' and he ,f eared that if overseas companies established plantations in the Dutch 'East Indies, or other tropical countries, a promising Australian industry might be jeopardised.

The oil, which was produced from tha paper baTk of the tea-free, was becoming valuable, said, Mr. P.enfold. .It was vitally necessary that landowners and persons leasing and otherwise holding property upon which tea-lree occurred should not supply the seed to any person, firm, or institution inquiring for it. This attitude was justified. Australia in the past had adopted the true international outlook, and supplied seeds of its native flora to all inquirers, although this generosity had not been reciprocated by other countries. The wattle-bark industry was x established in South Africa by seed obtained from Australia. That industry now appeared to have gone to South Africa for all time.

Mr. Penfold said that some time ago the Commonwealth Government was urged to place an embargo on the export of'seed; but no action was taken. It was maintained that it would beimpossible to 'police the enforcement ""• of the regulation.. Seeds, for instance, could be sent out of the country in letters or\ small packets. However, little harm could result from-this. -It was large quantities, of half a hundredweight or more, being sold , to countries like Japan, thai it was desired .to prevent." ' "

While commending Mr. Penfold's zeal to develop commercial . uses of indigenous plants, Mr. H. J. Bumsey writes to the Press: "I think that,he is both economically and morally wrong fn suggesting the prohibition of export of the seeds of any of our indigenous plant's, nor do I think that a prohibition would- have any appreciable effect. Half an ounce of seed which could be sent in a letter- and' repeated to any extent would produce some thousands of plants which, in their turn, would in a few years supply millions more. There is not even the excuse that we have developed the tea-tree that is used for oil, as it is a natural product of the country. • "When we look around and see that nine-tenths of the plants of our gardens, most of'the food's' that^we eat, and practically all our economic plants have come tous from other parts of the--world, it would be a ' dog 'in the manger' policy to refuse the}world anything, of value that "grows on' "this' country. Contrary to,, Mr. Penfold's statement, the world has indeed been very good to us in giying us of its best in seeds and plants, and so far we'have reciprocated." -1- **