Rough Fireweed at Majura, ACT
Identification history
| Senecio bathurstianus | 6 Sep 2021 | waltraud | ||
| Senecio bathurstianus | 10 Jun 2021 | MichaelBedingfield | ||
| Senecio hispidulus | 1 Jun 2021 | MichaelMulvaney | ||
| Senecio sp. | 1 Jun 2021 | JaneR |
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
User's notes
at edge of a dense grove of she-oaks, on south-face. Flowers were all in bud.
10 comments
MichaelMulvaney
wrote:
1 Jun 2021
The 13 flower bracts distinguish it from S. diaschides which only has up to 11 such bracts
MichaelMulvaney
wrote:
10 Jun 2021
Michael I have gone with S. hispidulus based on photo 2 which suggestion a level of leaf dissection less than usually seen in s, bathurstianus - I think both species occur on Mt Majura/Mt Ainslie but they are difficult to tell apart so could be persuaded that it is bathurstianus rather than hispidulus
MichaelBedingfield
wrote:
10 Jun 2021
I was going on the leaf shape. I thought S bathurstianus was more markedly lobed on the second dissection, & this one suits. If you are right, then maybe we need to review some of the S bathurstianus sightings.
MichaelMulvaney
wrote:
10 Jun 2021
Michael the Flora of Victoria distinguishes these two species according to the following
Leaves pinnatisect to sub-bipinnatisect, usually including upper leaves (S. bathurstians)
Leaves not dissected deeper than deeply lobate or if ever pinnatisect then upper stem leaves usually not pinnatisect (S. hispidulus).
It is a bit blurry what is the case with this plant but there are at least some leaves that are not sub-pinnatisect. I think we have been consistent in past ID calls with these two -
Leaves pinnatisect to sub-bipinnatisect, usually including upper leaves (S. bathurstians)
Leaves not dissected deeper than deeply lobate or if ever pinnatisect then upper stem leaves usually not pinnatisect (S. hispidulus).
It is a bit blurry what is the case with this plant but there are at least some leaves that are not sub-pinnatisect. I think we have been consistent in past ID calls with these two -
waltraud
wrote:
30 Aug 2021
All a bit confusing
I remember in 2013/14 FoMM recorded quite a number of what we thought were S. hispitulus as part of a rare plant survey. From memory, Michael told me later that they were in fact S. bathurstianus and that id resp names will be batch-changed on CNM accordingly; this seemed to not have happened (the records are still listed as S. hispitulus). I understood that S. hispitulus occurs at a higher altitude; I removed the species from our Flora list (which I currently update).
I put a set of photos showing a whole plant, flowers, leaves and a close-up of a leaf of what I thought was S hispitulus on Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/118179831@N02/with/12651055874/
I remember in 2013/14 FoMM recorded quite a number of what we thought were S. hispitulus as part of a rare plant survey. From memory, Michael told me later that they were in fact S. bathurstianus and that id resp names will be batch-changed on CNM accordingly; this seemed to not have happened (the records are still listed as S. hispitulus). I understood that S. hispitulus occurs at a higher altitude; I removed the species from our Flora list (which I currently update).
I put a set of photos showing a whole plant, flowers, leaves and a close-up of a leaf of what I thought was S hispitulus on Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/118179831@N02/with/12651055874/
waltraud
wrote:
6 Sep 2021
had anyone time to look at the photos?
There are currently many Senecio growing along Casuarina trail, southern aspect west of the iron bridge
as well as some in the gully close to the Hackett water tank where I took the photos for Flickr; I shall collect samples when in flower and ask our botanist for id.
There are currently many Senecio growing along Casuarina trail, southern aspect west of the iron bridge
as well as some in the gully close to the Hackett water tank where I took the photos for Flickr; I shall collect samples when in flower and ask our botanist for id.
waltraud
wrote:
29 Sep 2022
Would it make sense to consider habitat as well if the images are not clear for a decision between these two similar species? To my knowledge S hispidulus is a species that occurs in the montane forests over 730m altitude and thus is unlikely to occur in suburban Canberra.
Tapirlord
wrote:
29 Sep 2022
I can't remember having seen this discussion so i'm thinking this was before my time, but if I may.
MichaelM's description of the two is what I would follow, if the leaves are pinnatisect to sub-bipinnatisect then it is S.bathurstianus. Whereas S.hispidulus tends to have lobate or dentate leaves, but there is of course variation where the leaves may become pinnatisect. I think young s.bathursianus leaves may also be linear, but i'm not sure. This plant could really be either, I might lean towards S.bathurstianus as that species tends to be less hairy. I think this record would be best as Senecio species, if you three are happy with that.
Your comment about S.hispidulus as a montane species strikes me as odd Waltraud. I have certianly seen that species in the montane zone, but it isn't as common as S.linearifolius or S.prenanthoides. I'm not sure where the 730 figure has come from but there is good documentation of S.hispidiulus lower than that, I would suggest the altitudinal range is somewhere around 500-1300m. Both Senecio species likely occur at majura, S.hispidulus will probably be found in drainage lines or seasonally inundated grasslands, while S.bathurstinaus prefers drier rocky sites. We should be able to confidently determine the IDs from photos, a specimen collection is unecessary in my view.
As an additional side note I suggest that altitude or habitat while a great characteristic to supplement and identification, is not enough evidence to make a final call. Plants can pop up where you least expect them sometimes. As an example, I have encountered Manna gum (Euc.viminalis), which is normally a montane species that occurs up to around 1400m, on the exposed and rocky summit of tidbinbilla mountain in the subalpine (1600m).
MichaelM's description of the two is what I would follow, if the leaves are pinnatisect to sub-bipinnatisect then it is S.bathurstianus. Whereas S.hispidulus tends to have lobate or dentate leaves, but there is of course variation where the leaves may become pinnatisect. I think young s.bathursianus leaves may also be linear, but i'm not sure. This plant could really be either, I might lean towards S.bathurstianus as that species tends to be less hairy. I think this record would be best as Senecio species, if you three are happy with that.
Your comment about S.hispidulus as a montane species strikes me as odd Waltraud. I have certianly seen that species in the montane zone, but it isn't as common as S.linearifolius or S.prenanthoides. I'm not sure where the 730 figure has come from but there is good documentation of S.hispidiulus lower than that, I would suggest the altitudinal range is somewhere around 500-1300m. Both Senecio species likely occur at majura, S.hispidulus will probably be found in drainage lines or seasonally inundated grasslands, while S.bathurstinaus prefers drier rocky sites. We should be able to confidently determine the IDs from photos, a specimen collection is unecessary in my view.
As an additional side note I suggest that altitude or habitat while a great characteristic to supplement and identification, is not enough evidence to make a final call. Plants can pop up where you least expect them sometimes. As an example, I have encountered Manna gum (Euc.viminalis), which is normally a montane species that occurs up to around 1400m, on the exposed and rocky summit of tidbinbilla mountain in the subalpine (1600m).
waltraud
wrote:
30 Sep 2022
many thanks for the comprehensive info Tapirlord, I always learn something new.
The source reg altitude figure is Meredith Cosgrove (2014) Photographic Guide to Native Plants of the Australian Capital Territory, p 69. I think I discussed the issue also with our local botanist times ago but must ask her again.
I agree to use altitude or habitat only as supplementary info.
I usually use that bit of info to figure out whether or not a species is local (ie local-local: belonging to the grassy woodland and open forests of Mts Majura / Ainslie, a simple example is Casuarina cunnighamiana that is local to ACT but most likely not to the dry sclerophyll woodland and forest of Mts Majura Ainslie; there are several planted along the urban wetlands such as in Watson or Dickson. It can be tricky with all that plantings, landscape and garden escapes and modified habitat.
The source reg altitude figure is Meredith Cosgrove (2014) Photographic Guide to Native Plants of the Australian Capital Territory, p 69. I think I discussed the issue also with our local botanist times ago but must ask her again.
I agree to use altitude or habitat only as supplementary info.
I usually use that bit of info to figure out whether or not a species is local (ie local-local: belonging to the grassy woodland and open forests of Mts Majura / Ainslie, a simple example is Casuarina cunnighamiana that is local to ACT but most likely not to the dry sclerophyll woodland and forest of Mts Majura Ainslie; there are several planted along the urban wetlands such as in Watson or Dickson. It can be tricky with all that plantings, landscape and garden escapes and modified habitat.
Tapirlord
wrote:
30 Sep 2022
Ahh ok, that makes sense. I think i'm correct in saying that Merediths altitude ranges come from herbarium specimens so are mostly accurate, but again are a guide more than anything (I could give a number of good examples). Sounds like you've got this under raps.
Location information
- Coordinates 149.158250-35.274514
- Altitude 722.2m
- Maps Mount Ainslie
- Places Majura, ACT
Sighting information
- At least 1 Abundance
- 1 Jun 2021 03:57 PM Recorded on
- JaneR Recorded by
-
Collections
Plants Daisies JaneR Canberra & Southern Tablelands NatureMapr
Additional information
- 1 metre to 5 metres Plant height
- True In flower
Species information
- Senecio bathurstianus Scientific name
- Rough Fireweed Common name
- Not Sensitive
- Local native
- Non-invasive or negligible
- Up to 1252.03m Recorded at altitude
- 144 images trained Machine learning
-
In flower
- External link More information
Record quality
- Images or audio
- More than one media file
- Verified by an expert moderator
- Nearby sighting(s) of same species
- GPS evidence of location
- Description
- Additional attributes
