Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
Rabaelthazar

Acacia ID request

Question

Hi guys, could anyone id this tree? I don't believe it's the special kind, but this is one of my favourite trees to be around. I love the patterns on the bark and the neatness of the leaf patterns. My little boy loves stroking the leaves too. I'd love to grow some to give away as decorative presents. Much appreciated.

IMG_1278.jpg

IMG_1277.jpg

IMG_1276.jpg

Edited by Rabaelthazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Bumpety bump.

Anyone, anyone?? Fry... Fry???

Edited by Rabaelthazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

yep. Don't think it is an Acacia. Mimosa, Tipuanu, Albizzia, Paraserianthes, something like that?

 

Thanks Occidentalis. I didn't even consider that it could be something other than Acacia. Saw the yellow bits and assumed. We're getting somewhere though, anyone else?

Edited by Rabaelthazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I have never done any study into the Acacieae family, but it looks like it could be one of the 'black wattle' analogues to me.

I could be wrong..

Edited by Illustro Verum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I have never done any study into the Acacieae family, but it looks like it could be one of the 'black wattle' analogues to me.

I could be wrong..

 

Have you studied any botany?

How do you gently and politely suggest refraining from posting stabs in the dark?

Looks to me like a South American exotic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Have you studied any botany?

How do you gently and politely suggest refraining from posting stabs in the dark?

Looks to me like a South American exotic...

 

I would highly recommend getting that sandy-vag cleaned brah.

Have i studied any botany?.. :/

As i said, i have never studied the Acacieae family - at all.. But the leaves, trunk and infloresences resemble very closely that of what i was taught was a black wattle. Upon doing some googling, it appears what i was taught growing up was a black wattle is in fact not - that it is another wattle species the 'brush wattle' or Paraserianthes lophantha.. Which, shit.. If you ask me, and probably everyone else on this board - looks a fuck load like what the OP posted. And considering this guy lives in Melbourne, and not the Amazon - makes it a whole lot more likely to be an ozzy native over some South American who-knows.. Occam's Razor much bro?

Also, the inflorescences are undeveloped - so an exact ID would have to wait until they mature.

:wave-finger:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Alright, a shit fight! To your respective corners gentlemen, no hitting below the belt. :slap:

I'll post more pics once the inflorescences (thank you for the new addition to my vocab) mature.

Edited by Rabaelthazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As i said, i have never studied the Acacieae family - at all.

 

I think the reason why Morg asked that question is that there is no such family as the Acacieae.

And secondly perhaps because you said "looks like it could be one of the 'black wattle' analogues to me" - 'black wattle' being almost so vague as to be meaningless, but if anything it generally refers to Acacia melanoxylon or A. mearnsii, and 'analogue' being a term which has pretty much no place in botany.

Therefore it is pretty clear you are just making stuff up.

Also, it does look a lot like Tipuana tipu (in fact it looks more like this to me than P. lophantha) or related species. These are South American plants that are VERY common in horticulture and often planted as street trees.

So while Morg came across a bit harsh I really think he was quite reasonable and that your post contributed nothing to the conversation except perhaps further confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

this is rediculous, he was trying to help ffs. Morgs post added little to the ID of the plant yet it is encouraged :wacko:

black wattle is used for many species one of which is Acacia decurrens, which the trunk shot in the OP is very similar to the ones ive seen. The other pics suggests its not but it is by no means a shot in the dark.

Having a go at someones mistake of family for another category or lack of a degree is up there with the lamest arguments known.

Half the data on plants wouldnt exist if people didnt have stabs in the dark and discover things.

How do you gently and politely suggest people could try getting off their high horses and realise they have no more or less to add to the world from anyone else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

fair call sapito. a can see that morg came across as a douche. it's a fine line sometimes..

the douchery i think often genuinely comes from a desire to uphold the integrity(which can be quite shaky on many forums) & accuracy of the information on the corroboree. politics suck but are necissary no?

my first impression of Illustro Verum's post was a bit like occidentalis explained it but seriously he did have some good points to make. the pinnate leaves & bark do grossly resemble certain acacia spp that are called 'black wattle' & Acacieae is not a family but it is what could be called (or is called) a 'tribe' of the subfamily mimosoideae of the family Fabaceae.

Illustro Verum i know you've got some good points to make, i just think the wording of your OP came across as a little pretentious

Edited by paradox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think the reason why Morg asked that question is that there is no such family as the Acacieae.

And secondly perhaps because you said "looks like it could be one of the 'black wattle' analogues to me" - 'black wattle' being almost so vague as to be meaningless, but if anything it generally refers to Acacia melanoxylon or A. mearnsii, and 'analogue' being a term which has pretty much no place in botany.

Therefore it is pretty clear you are just making stuff up.

Also, it does look a lot like Tipuana tipu (in fact it looks more like this to me than P. lophantha) or related species. These are South American plants that are VERY common in horticulture and often planted as street trees.

So while Morg came across a bit harsh I really think he was quite reasonable and that your post contributed nothing to the conversation except perhaps further confusion.

 

Thats pure semantics, i have just heard the family being referred to as Acacieae - turns out thats the tribe. Yeah, retarded mistake i know - so what?..

I have been learning the basic faunal KPCOFGS groups lately. I simply made the mistake of applying the faunal taxonomy order to flora, putting Acacieae above genus - making it family.. Anyway, you know what i meant and had nothing to do with this debate - you are simply clutching at straws.

As i said, i have never done any study into the Acacieae tribe (got it right that time :wink: ). And no, i am exceptionally correct in my judgment - it is exactly what i suspected (at least it looks a lot like it). Differing or wrong local terminology really isn't my problem.. At least i had a go at rounding it down to a few species, better than the blanket "South American exotic"...

Analogue has no place in botany? Really, thats awesome man.. You speaking from experience or from your ass?

How am i making stuff up? I said exactly what i thought.. My terms were incorrect but my ID was spot-on. When i read morgs post i revised the 'black wattle' search with 'wattle' suspecting the common name i used may be incorrect. When i searched for 'wattle' and my geographical location, i found exactly what i meant.. Paraserianthes lophantha, which was the dominant search result - cited as a major pest in my area. Which it is, hence me recognizing it. And guess what, it is considered a pest in Melbourne too.

As i said, Occam's Razor.. Heard of it?.. No?.. Well, google it...

Tipuana tipu? Really?! I have absolutely no idea how you managed to ferret that one out of the box. Well at least you tried huh?

Lets compare..

Paraserianthes lophantha:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Paraserianthes_lophantha_Albizia_lophantha_BotGardBln271207A.jpg

Tipuana tipu:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Tipuana_tipu2960832493.jpg

You do realize true botanists use things like the flowers, leaves, branching and pretty much anything that makes a plant a plant to identify and categorize plant species right? I'm not sure what you used, but it obviously wasn't anything to do with the plant..

Oh and thanks sapito! Good to see a few good people about B)

EDIT: @paradox; i thought my OP was pretty unassuming :scratchhead:

Edited by Illustro Verum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well didn't expect to ignite the board, but I suppose there is no way of saying you're way off and pissing in the wind without sounding like a cunt.

Occidentalis outlines all of my reasons. I thought by perhaps leaving them out I might not sound like such a know-all, I should have left them in to provide more information and sound equally know-all.

Very good, you have now narrowed down to a candidate species. Your first post did nothing of the sort. "Black wattle" to me means Callicoma. Analogue is not a taxonomic term, and together with Acacieae and your general uncertainty you made yourself (to me) sound like you were pissing in the wind.

Doesn't matter for shit what you know or don't know if you can't put together a precise sentence.

You say what you are heard to say, not what you intend.

Keep studying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks everybody for the ideas. I've googled each suggestion and Paraserianthes lophantha seems to be the best bet at the moment, but I'll wait and see if the brushes develop. I don't remember them from last year, but my memory's not always reliable.

Wiki states (among other things): "(Paraserianthes Lophantha) was first spread beyond southwest Australia by Baron Ferdinand von Mueller, who gave packets of P. lophantha seeds to early explorers... It is considered a weed in Australia"

Hmmm... if the ID is correct I may have to re-think my idea of giving these away as ornamentals. It really is a beautiful tree, though.

Thanks all for the ringside entertainment as well. I'm surprised Mutant hasn't joined in this thread yet.

Cheers

Ra

Edited by Rabaelthazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thats pure semantics, i have just heard the family being referred to as Acacieae - turns out thats the tribe. Yeah, retarded mistake i know - so what?..

I can see that I came across as nitpicking but actually I had never heard of any taxonomic grouping called the Acacieae until I just googled it. The WA Herbarium has only just converted to APGIII and I haven't yet. It's also worth noting that levels like 'tribe' 'subgenus' 'superfamily' and so on aren't really used on a day to day basis in botanical identification.

Analogue has no place in botany? Really, thats awesome man.. You speaking from experience or from your ass?

Well, I'm speaking from my professional opinion. As a botanist and plant biologist.

I read your OP, thought it was pretty useless as a post, but didn't bother replying to it.

I think Morg's response was a bit harsh, but entirely valid.

Tipuana tipu? Really?! I have absolutely no idea how you managed to ferret that one out of the box. Well at least you tried huh?

 

I've never actually seen the flowers of T. tipu before - actually it seems that I have been mistaken for quite some time about that species. There were some trees at uni that I was told by a lecturer were T. tipu but they definitely had Acacia-like flowers, and not pea flowers like those in the photo. Thanks for teaching me something. That lecturer wasn't actually a plant biologist, so I might trust wikipedia more ;).

You do realize true botanists use things like the flowers, leaves, branching and pretty much anything that makes a plant a plant to identify and categorize plant species right? I'm not sure what you used, but it obviously wasn't anything to do with the plant.

OK, well I won't labour the point, but I am actually a 'true botanist', and I am aware of the various anatomical features that are used to identify a plant - and I am also aware that the quality of the photos (sorry Rabalthazar) was pretty poor, and the subject wasn't even in flower. So anything more precise than an 'I reckon it's x species' type of identification is going to be largely bullshit.

Paraserianthes lophantha is a native of the area that I live and I have grown it in my garden. I don't think the photos posted look like the plants I grew.

The nature of this discussion is to do with the quality of the posts on this forum which IMO is at its lowest since I joined the site. I suspect Morg feels similarly. Perhaps it's time for us old timers to just shuffle off and leave the newbies to make pointless posts and ask repetitive questions.

Edited by occidentalis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Dude plant biology is botany.. If you said botany and plant physiology or something similar, it might not come across as you trying to sound important.

Basically, this is what it sounds like to me:

You think that the presentation of a post is of more merit than its content; so my incorrectly written but ultimately accurate post is of less value than yours because yours was better written even though it is completely inaccurate? Well by all means, make your own forum where you and your egits can bring back the good old days of overly formal ye olde english posts jabbering on about the flat earth and why dinosaurs didn't survive the great flood in pure, lovely, insane jargon..

Sounds to me like you took a stab in the dark just as much as i did, yet my stab was actually in the right direction and not all pissed like yours..

If this place was for qualified botanists only, i may see some grain of reason to your gripes - but it isn't.. This forum is for amateurs, this subforum is for amateurs to get plant identifications from amateurs.. Even members of botanical societies wouldn't stoop as low as you and your chumps did to dish out this kind of crap on amateurs that make a simple taxonomic mistake.

Besides, i still think you are talking out your ass.. I have been studying botany amateurly for about 1-2 months (on a truly botanical scale and not just being wowed by the drug content of plants). Yet i (someone who isn't even in australia) can come to a far more competent and accurate ID than you, a supposed professional who is resident in the country where this plant is native.

I get the feeling you are definitely not a qualified botanist, but someone who has been studying plants amateurly for several years and may have at most taken a few botany interest papers at university..

Definitely not an ego-anthem if you ask me..

Edited by Illustro Verum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If we can quit the agro dick-measuring and get back to the point for a moment...

"You think that the presentation of a post is of more merit than its content; so my incorrectly written but ultimately accurate post"

There was nothing "ultimately accurate" in your first post. If you'd put your second post up first then you wouldn't be so upset and indignant now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This is going to be my last post in this thread.

Dude plant biology is botany..

Plant biology is a broader term that than botany and includes all aspects of plant research. And when I look at the experience I've had in the field, they can be quite neatly divided into pure botany - ie, field surveys, identification, specimen collection, herbarium collation, and reporting... and more general plant biology including plant pathology and seed biology (which are the areas I have experience in which I do not consider to be pure botany)...

But you know, we wouldn't want to nitpick or dwell on semantics...

You think that the presentation of a post is of more merit than its content; so my incorrectly written but ultimately accurate post is of less value than yours because yours was better written even though it is completely inaccurate?

 

No, I think the exactly opposite. I wouldn't have cared if you had said 'acaciaeae family' and 'analogue' if you had actually used a species name, instead of saying "black wattle", which as I pointed out, is meaningless. Because you used that meaningless common name, your post was useless. Then you had to go and be a dick in response to the criticism you received.

I am not concerned by what terminology someone uses as long as their meaning is clear. In your case, your meaning was absolutely not clear.

Sounds to me like you took a stab in the dark just as much as i did, yet my stab was actually in the right direction and not all pissed like yours..

you're right that I took a stab in the dark (actually it was a very broad stab at 4 or 5 genera if you read my first post). But I actually named the genera, and hence added something to the discussion.

My second stab was wrong as we have discussed. That's another thing I don't mind, people making mistakes. As long as they are able to say "sorry, I was wrong" when shown the evidence.

If this place was for qualified botanists only, i may see some grain of reason to your gripes - but it isn't.. This forum is for amateurs, this subforum is for amateurs to get plant identifications from amateurs.. Even members of botanical societies wouldn't stoop as low as you and your chumps did to dish out this kind of crap on amateurs that make a simple taxonomic mistake.

I have admitted that the Acaciaeae thing was actually my mistake because (like many other professional plant biologists, I suspect, I had never heard of that taxonomic grouping - because it is a minor element of a new system). Drop it.

I agree that this place is for amateurs (which is how I like it) and I don't normally criticise people for using incorrect terminology or making minor mistakes like that - except when they are being dicks.

I get the feeling you are definitely not a qualified botanist, but someone who has been studying plants amateurly for several years and may have at most taken a few botany interest papers at university..

Ok, you are welcome to think that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

illustro verum, you got caught out trying to sound intelligent (we all do it!) though it's been blown out of proportion i think the problem is that the wording makes it look like you're trying to show your knowledge is somewhat deeper & more precise than it actually is...

maybe if you said: "i don't know much about acacia's but it looks a bit like a black wattle" then people would have taken you more seriously :wink: but then you wouldn't have been saying much... as i know of at least 5 totally different plants (some not even acacia

) which are called 'black wattle' so it probably would have been more useful to look up precisely which species is the one you meant & posted the scientific name..

the problem is (& it's very bloody common on internet forums) is that if someone who knows nothing of the subject (& therefore can't read through the lines) reads your post they might assume because of the wording, that you're extremely knowledgeable about the topic, so they'll take your words for gospel then spread mis-information/fuck something up etc..

in this case your comments are pretty benign so it seems like a shit-fight over nothing but it's indicative of a much larger issue & one which is very important in maintaining the integrity of info at a forum like this. it's a very fine line to tread but ultimately it's essential, it's hard sometimes for older members to not get the shits & come across like dicks but ultimately it's very important & is part of the reason the corroboree is considered by many to be a great forum & a extremely useful source of information..

i really think you were genuinely just trying to help, it's not a personal thing, i don't think it's so much about your (very benign) post, it's just something that makes older members (who care about the forum) sensitive, & though the reasons aren't personal they are important

IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
I'm surprised Mutant hasn't joined in this thread yet.

here you are, I don't like to disappoint noone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

More from the jargon-mincing "botanist".

Over and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

here you are, I don't like to disappoint noone

 

Ha ha.. thanks for coming along.

Edited by Rabaelthazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

MORG, get over it mate, he beat you :P

...they say you can tell what kind of man is someone from the way he reacts to defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@paradox; I felt i was simply being honest and using language i would usually use.. I said what i meant; that i simply havent done any study into the Acacieae tribe / Mimosoideae family like many people who are obsessed with the DMT producing plants.. I guess it could seem i was implying more, but it was the complete opposite.

More from the jargon-mincing "botanist".

Over and out.

 

Dude, seriously... You really had to go to the extent of looking through my previous posts?..

When the did i ever call myself a botanist huh? I have never said anything of the kind, i have always been conceding in my posts to the fact that i am new to botany.

Shit, i try to make something good out of what was previously destroying my life just to have some hopped-up little geek on a on an ego-trip critiquing my every move. Which i must admit, is exceptionally aggravating.

I don't see what jargon i was 'mincing' in that post, it was all proper terminology (to the best of my knowledge). Yes i was wrong in my original assumption, but i admitted i was wrong when culebra22 gave some insight - your point is? I bet if i could be bothered trawling through your masses of posts that i could find plenty golden turds.

I will admit, i have learned a an exceptional amount from this tho. I think i have found a new study-method :lol:

Edited by Illustro Verum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I am also aware that the quality of the photos (sorry Rabalthazar) was pretty poor, and the subject wasn't even in flower.

 

Yeah, I've just realized that I'm going to have to invest in a better camera if I'm going to posting requests like this. At the moment I'm just using my iPhone camera and it just doesn't cut it. Wanted to post a picture today of a brand new mushroom pin that's sprouting in my garden but my resolution makes it look like a white dot against woodchips. When the tree I'm asking about in this post flowers, I'll make sure to get up some better quality snaps. Thanks for your help on this one.

Edited by Rabaelthazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I sent those pics of the tree in question to a butterfly expert and he immediately said , Cape Leewin Wattle (Parasianthes lophanta sub sp, formerly Albiza lophantha) Its a larval food plant of the Tailed Emperor butterfly. I Googled and came up with a few pics that have similar characteristics. Looks like it IMO. Is there any sign of flowering yet Rabaelthazar

post-7430-128209409049_thumb.jpg post-7430-128209409943_thumb.jpg

3881411108_e6290ff7d6.jpg

Mimo_039.jpg

3881411108_e6290ff7d6.jpg

Mimo_039.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×