posting this in the interest of people who despite the advice given, intend to pursue this further, to enable them to make a more informed judgement about what's happened. this is a copy of an email recieved today from the source which the author of that document cites, John Hosking. it's in response to an email i sent immediately after recieving the email from Mr Randall, prior to changing my mind about how wise it is to have people going after this.
I maintain a list of species that have been reported to have naturalised in
Australia and this list includes Australian native species that have
naturalised outside their native range. The list only includes species
backed by specimens in herbaria. Acacia phlebophylla is native to Victoria
and was considered to have naturalised outside its native range in that
state (according to Ross, J.H. (2000) A census of the vascular plants of
Victoria p. 122 - I suspect this is the source but cannot check it at
present (the publication is at home)). It appears that it is no longer
considered to be naturalised outside its native range, at least according
Naturalisation outside the native range for endangered species (although in
this case it is supposedly not endangered, just rare - according to the
list on the previous website) depends on ones point of view. It is easy to
argue either way. The list that I maintain does not argue that a species is
a weed or not. Many naturalised species are present in only small areas and
appear not to be spreading and are of no real concern. Whether you wish to
call such species a weed depends on ones definition of a weed.
Edited by bulls on parade, 15 June 2012 - 02:11 PM.