Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
bricklaya

does acacia mucronata subs. mucronata have a basal gland?

Recommended Posts

haven't had any luck finding info on this was just wondering if anyone could help.. also is mucronata known to hybridise with floribunda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only info I can find regarding glands is in the general A. mucronata description which then breaks off into the 3 (currently recognised?) subspecies descriptions with no mention of gland presence/abscence. References used are online world wide wattle and text Flora of Australia v11B.

So i'd assume (assumptions are the mother of fuck ups) that yes glands would be present on all 3 subspecies.

A. mucronata subsp. longifolia is presumed to hybridise with A. oxycedrus, and A. oxycedrus is presumed to hybridse with A. floribunda, so quite possibly A. mucronata subspecies could hybridise with A. floribunda.

It's all very confusing, really takes complete dedication to even begin to understand acacia's and even then we are just trying to somewhat unnaturally put dynamic things in set boxes which is somewhat impossible in the broader context I guess, but can still be achieved somewhat. Variable and dynamic are good contexts to keep in mind with Acacias. (all biology too I guess).

Our scientific methods are somewhat restrictive, and also limited based on information available and understood at any given time, as are more cultural classification methods, which as I understand it can have differences as well as similar grounds/overlaps.

Visual botanical classification can be somewhat restrictive, just like chemotype classifications etc. One example I like to vaguely keep in mind with classifications is the situation (if i recall correctly) of the botanist in South America that I think Shulgin spoke about, where an Indian was pointing out two Cyperaceae (I think it was PiriPiri) plants of the same western botanical classification that the botanist was somewhat ignoring one as he had the other, but the Indian recognised one as medicinally useful and the other not, even though the botanist said they were the same plant and only wanted to focus on one.

Confused? I am.

Edited by gerbil
  • Like 2

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
Sign in to follow this  

×