Gday TeeJay, Kunzea and Peter!
Interesting topic... My theory is that the major factor affecting bark development is age, but I reckon there may be more to it than that. I've attached a number of pics which I believe represent mature (or semi-mature) bark on some of my Eucs. I'll give a brief run-down on each tree, and see if I can find a common thread.
E_Camaldulensis_Bark_01.jpg
This E. camaldulensis has been in my collection for most of my Bonsai life, and is about 10 years old. It has rarely been taller than 350-400mm (except when it was purchased as 500+mm tall tubestock). Its base is currently about 40mm across. I consider this bark to be semi-mature, as it still regularly sheds all the way to the base of the tree, whereas a mature River Red will tend to keep some lower bark intact.
* * *E_Melliodora_Bark_01.jpg
This E. melliodora has been in my collection for about 8 years, and is probably about 12-13 years old. The tallest it has been is around 1.5m, but it has usually been less than 1m in height. It is approximately 50mm wide at the base. Once again, I call this bark semi-mature: the top half of the trunk sheds bark in solid flakes, but the base is beginning to take on a fibrous appearance.
* * *A_Floribunda_Bark_01.jpg
I've had this
Angophora floribunda for a year or two, and I estimate it to be about 5-7 years old. When I bought it from the nursery, it was probably about 1.2m tall, and has been steadily growing shorter over time. It is about 60mm at the base. I don't know what mature bark looks like with this species, but the flaky bark is very different to the bark on the tree that I layered off the top. Shall we call it semi-mature?
* * *E_Camaldulensis_Bark_02.jpg
I bought this tree about 2 years ago, and I was told that it is a River Red Gum (the leaves give me some doubts). I could not guess at an age, and I wonder if the tree is the product of an air-layer. When I bought it, it was about 1.2m tall, and I've
layered and pruned it to below 1m (there's another layer on the cards too). It is about 80mm across. This bark is what I would deem to be mature: it splits and cracks, but does not shed. The bark has matured considerably in the past 2 years, as can be seen below.
Ba_Loc_River_Red_1.jpg
* * *E_Rubida(_)_Bark_01.jpg
Finally, I collected this Euc in mid-2007 from a local garden. My paltry research points towards it being
E. rubida (Candlebark), although I collected some flower buds and gumnuts this evening from adjacent trees which may indicate otherwise. It could be anywhere from 10 to 20 years old. Upon collection it was about 400mm tall, and while I was stalking it I never saw it taller than 1m (there is a lot of evidence that it had been chopped numerous times). Depending on where I measure, it is about 100mm across. The base displays very mature Euc bark which hasn't changed much in the past 2 years: occasionally it will swell and crack, exposing a red core, but it does not shed.
* * *
So, what have we gleaned here?
Of the very small sample of trees I've surveyed here, girth would certainly appear to be the major factor for the determination of bark character (as PeterH suggests). The problem is that girth can be achieved in a number of ways, including age, height, health, specific variation and/or a history of ongoing injury. (For reference, the bark of the tree in Case 4 is between 8 and 10mm thick
at the top of the trunk (see below).) So, in answer to the original question, I have to say "yes and no".
Ba_Loc_RR_Post-Layer_05.jpg
If anybody else can see a pattern emerging here, please speak up.
Thanks.
Fly.