Westringia eremicola

Slender Western Rosemary at Hughes, ACT

Request use of media

Identification history

	Westringia eremicola	29 Jun 2017	BettyDonWood
	Westringia eremicola	11 Jun 2017	ruthkerruish

Identify this sighting

Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.

16 comments

BettyDonWood wrote:

11 Jun 2017

I am not sure. The leaves look too wide (maximum 1.6 mm wide in eremicola). It is just within the range of l:w ratio of the leaves for eremicola. There is not enough detail in the leaves to ID from a photo. It has to be planted or a garden escape. Thus I am not sure whether a good sized sample of a flowering branch is legal without a permit. It needs to go into the Botanic Gardens for a proper ID. Mike, your ideas?

ruthkerruish wrote:

12 Jun 2017

The original tube stock was purchased as W. eremicola and this and other cuttings made from them. I have been surprised at how 'delicate-looking' the plants are. Not sure if that is any help.

ruthkerruish wrote:

12 Jun 2017

The original tube stock was purchased as W. eremicola and these cuttings made from them. I have been surprised at how 'delicate-looking' the plants are. Not sure if that is any help.

BettyDonWood wrote:

12 Jun 2017

Let's see what Michael Mulvaney says when he gets back in a couple of weeks.

Mike wrote:

12 Jun 2017

Where did the plants come from? It gets hard with cultivated/nursery stock.

MichaelMulvaney wrote:

21 Jun 2017

The leaves should be hairy if W. eremicola - only a restricted range of Westringia are commonly sold in Canberra nurseries so I am inclined to think that it is W. eremicola.

ruthkerruish wrote:

21 Jun 2017

The plants are good survivors and flower well.

BettyDonWood wrote:

21 Jun 2017

Could you check on leaf hairiness. I have blown the second photo up but the leaves just go blurry.

ruthkerruish wrote:

22 Jun 2017

Leaves do not seem to be hairy - perhaps it is a Westringia eremicola hybrid - there are a few of them.

ruthkerruish wrote:

22 Jun 2017

I have added another photo which may help. The calyx is hairy. Another reference says the leaves are only hairy when young.

Varanus wrote:

29 Jun 2017

My first ID reaction on seeing these photos was Westringia eremicola. Due to the various comments made, I decided to do a little more checking. Plants of Western NSW states leaves up to 2mm wide, but growing environment can influence morphology. On reviewing previously confirmed sightings, it would appear that some specimens have leaves in proportion to this recording, and on expanding the photographs for closer examination, the hairiness of the leaf surface in some specimens is questionable. Regardless of the species involved, another question arises. W. eremicola and certain other species from this location are not indigenous, even if they do occur in other areas of the ACT. We have a similar situation with Acacia pravissima, cultiformis and vestita, and probably other species. Should they be planted in reserve areas? I would be interested to hear comments on this.

MichaelMulvaney wrote:

30 Jun 2017

Geoff - Given climate change and that many local extinctions have undoubtedly happened, I don't have a strict view that only species known or currently occurring within a reserve or natural area should be planted in that area. I think we should try and plant species known to be from a habitat (e.g. Box-Gium woodland) in Box Gum woodland areas, and the wetland plantings within the Basin restoration project are using species local to a local catchment. Similarly the current ACT policy is to allow seed collected from within the Southern Tablelands of locally indigenous species to be used anywhere within the ACT in restoration projects.

Mike wrote:

30 Jun 2017

After this sighting was recorded I revisited the location in Isaacs and added new pictures, http://canberra.naturemapr.org/Community/Sightings/Details/3378061. According to herbarium specimens AVH shows W. eremicola close to and west of the Murrumbidgee (though locations plotted on the maps do not always correspond to physical location) so the Isaacs plants might have been put there. Several high altitude species must be more attractive and have been planted around Canberra, the reverse of what would be expected from climate change. I am not against giving them a chance because otherwise some drastically changed 'reserves' would have little to offer in terms of native species. I am against introducing widely separated species which give rise to unwanted hybridisation.

ruthkerruish wrote:

1 Jul 2017

Thank you for your comments Varanus. Ideally only species indigenous to an area should be planted in a nature reserve - though climate change may/will require a variation of that. Hughes Garran Woodland is not a nature reserve. For land management purposes it is identified as "urban open space" and its immediate objective is to provide a recreational amenity for the local community. In the longer term, however, the aim is to restore the area to a diverse box-gum grassy woodland. Permission has to be obtained for all plantings and their location! There are quite a few plants in the woodland that are not indigenous including eucalypts that have been previously planted for various reasons. The woodland is old sheep country and is full of weeds - the long term management plan is available online at the beginning of the HGW plantings on the CNM.

ruthkerruish wrote:

1 Jul 2017

Thank you Mike for your comments - management of growing the seed to its final planting location can be a tortuous path!.

ruthkerruish wrote:

1 Jul 2017

We are well aware of hybridization - we inherited an urban open space with some hybrid grevilleas - members do not want them removed because other than cassinias. they are the only shrubs of any size that we have!

Please Login or Register to comment.