The first chemical examination of the oil of Melaleuoa erioifolia Sm. was made by Baker and Smith (1922), who reported a-terpineol to be the characteristic constituent, finding also cineole, ( + )- a-pinene, ( +) -limonene, dipentene, and sesquiterpenes to be present. However, Penfold and Morrison (1935), in a re-examination of the oil from various localities of New South Wales (including that from which Baker and Smith obtained their material), could find no a-terpineol, but showed that (+)-linalool was the characteristic component. The commercial distillation of this species has recently been projected and a more critical examination of the oil has become desirable in order to resolve the earlier conflicting data. The examination of oils distilled by a commercial firm on the Korth Coast of New South Wales and those distilled by the author from localities near Sydney has confirmed the presence of linalool to the extent of about 20 to 40 per cent. However, in the oil distilled from a " bulk cut " of foliage from Narrabeen, N.S.W., the presence of about 4 to 5 per cent. of (+)-a-terpineol was demonstrated. Other constituents found were : cineole (21 per cent.), linalool (approx. 25 per cent.), terpenes (approx. 15 per cent., consisting of (+)-a-pinene, dipentene), sesquiterpenes, two sesquiterpene alcohols both yielding an azulenic compound on dehydrogenation, and an alkane. Traces of aldehydes were present in the lowest-boiling fract' ion. To determine whether there are any plants which yield oils with a-terpineol as the characteristic constituent, the physical constants of the oils distilled from nine individual plants were compared. No significant variations were obkerved, each oil containing linalool and cineole. Since the physicochemical properties of their oil were similar to those of oils containing linalool, it would appear that Baker and Smith overlooked the presence of linalool in the oil they examined. There is no possibility that they worked on the wrong species, as the only plant which is likely to be confused with M. ericifolia Sm. is M. erubesoens Otto. However, M. erubescems is always red-flowered (Cheel1924) and Baker and Smith definitely state that they worked on white-flowered material, that is, M. erioifolia.