Native Blackthorn, Sweet Bursaria at Watson, ACT
Identification history
| Bursaria spinosa | 8 Mar 2022 | Tapirlord | ||
| Bursaria spinosa | 8 Mar 2022 | waltraud |
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
User's notes
The first 2 photographs are taken of a planted specimen which has glabrous & shiny leaves that are different to the more dull green leaves with a hairy undersurface that I know from the local species Bursaria spinosa sub species lasiophylla (see 3rd photo). I will collect material for proper id.
13 comments
waltraud
wrote:
25 Jul 2023
hi Tapirlord, here we are again: our botanist suggests B. spinosa subsp lasiophylla is the local species as listed in the Census; the Census doesn't list B. spinosa or B. spinosa subsp. spinosa which according to our botanist are not local. We bought B. spinosa for planting; I hate the idea that we plant non-local species.
Tapirlord
wrote:
25 Jul 2023
Hey Waltraud, I have the alerts for your comments on three sightings, but I'll just respond to everything here if that's ok. If I'm being completely honest I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Bursaria spinosa is definitely on the Census, as it is the parent taxa to Bursaria spinosa lasiophylla. So to be explicitly clear, Bursaria spinosa is endemic to the ACT with all local populations falling under the infraspecies designation of subspecies lasiophylla. I imagine this is also what Isobel has advised also.
So, this means two things:
1. The planted stock you have brought is in fact a local species. It just may not be from a local population, and hence be better represented by a different subspecies (one can never really tell with planted stock, cultivars etc.). Obviously it is ideal to plant from local seedstock, but this doesn't mean that you have planted a non-local species in this case.
2. All taxa that are currently maintained as Bursaria spinosa (without infraspecies desingation) are done so correctly. I imagine that in nearly all cases these sightings do represent Bursaria spinosa lasiophylla, but leaving the ID without associated infraspecies is no less correct (although obviously not as useful). Both the parent species and its associated infraspecies are maintained by CNM global taxa, and this approach should continue for those rare cases where infraspecies desingation isn't possible. I am happy to go through our observations of B.spinosa on CNM and desingate infraspecies, given that the reason this has not been done already is probably just a convenience error.
I must admit that I was a bit confused by your suggestion to leaves identifications at genus level. Given that Bursaria spinosa is the parent taxon, if we are unsure as to the subspecies we should leave the ID at Bursaria spinosa and not at genus Bursaria. What you are suggesting would be like calling sightings in the genus Caladenia "family orchidaceae" because species-level designation is not possible. This doesn't make sense as the preferene with identifications is to attain the lowest level of nomencalture possible.
Hopefully this is helpful.
So, this means two things:
1. The planted stock you have brought is in fact a local species. It just may not be from a local population, and hence be better represented by a different subspecies (one can never really tell with planted stock, cultivars etc.). Obviously it is ideal to plant from local seedstock, but this doesn't mean that you have planted a non-local species in this case.
2. All taxa that are currently maintained as Bursaria spinosa (without infraspecies desingation) are done so correctly. I imagine that in nearly all cases these sightings do represent Bursaria spinosa lasiophylla, but leaving the ID without associated infraspecies is no less correct (although obviously not as useful). Both the parent species and its associated infraspecies are maintained by CNM global taxa, and this approach should continue for those rare cases where infraspecies desingation isn't possible. I am happy to go through our observations of B.spinosa on CNM and desingate infraspecies, given that the reason this has not been done already is probably just a convenience error.
I must admit that I was a bit confused by your suggestion to leaves identifications at genus level. Given that Bursaria spinosa is the parent taxon, if we are unsure as to the subspecies we should leave the ID at Bursaria spinosa and not at genus Bursaria. What you are suggesting would be like calling sightings in the genus Caladenia "family orchidaceae" because species-level designation is not possible. This doesn't make sense as the preferene with identifications is to attain the lowest level of nomencalture possible.
Hopefully this is helpful.
waltraud
wrote:
25 Jul 2023
hi Tapirlord
I could only find the below entry on the Census but not Bursaria spinosa or Bursaria spinosa subsp spinosa. I may missunderstood something from Isobel; will follow up.
Census lists only the following:
Bursaria spinosa subsp. lasiophylla PITTOSPORACEAE 2002 R.Schodde 1266 Australian Blackthorn
I could only find the below entry on the Census but not Bursaria spinosa or Bursaria spinosa subsp spinosa. I may missunderstood something from Isobel; will follow up.
Census lists only the following:
Bursaria spinosa subsp. lasiophylla PITTOSPORACEAE 2002 R.Schodde 1266 Australian Blackthorn
Tapirlord
wrote:
25 Jul 2023
Yes, but Bursaria Spinosa lasiophylla and Bursaria spinosa spinosa are both just forms Bursaria spinosa. Not different species. Hence Bursaria spinosa is listed on the census through the name Bursaria spinosa lasiophylla. This is what I was trying to say above, sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Mike
wrote:
25 Jul 2023
Burbidge and Gray 1970 lists Bursaria spinosa for the ACT species. At some time the species has been divided. Australian Plant Name Index APNI lists many synonyms but it boils down to Bursaria spinosa subspecies. lasiophylla and Bursaria spinosa subspecies. spinosa. In the 1980s NCDC listed Bursaria lasiophylla as the local species in a report on Isaacs Ridge. In the early days of CNM I had to photograph details such as the underside of leaves to identify the subspecies. For local natural populations we could assume Bursaria spinosa subsp. lasiophylla and for planted populations Bursaria spinosa without a subspecies designation unless provenance is local. In nature reserves, plantings should be local provenance although climate change may require consideration of non-local plants for climate resilience, but that is another topic.
Mike
wrote:
25 Jul 2023
So that we don’t lose information from these lengthy discussions, I have created a Collection called ‘Discussions’ you can see from Community/Collections. (I did call it ‘Talking points’ but that is too far down the alphabet and couldn’t be found.)
waltraud
wrote:
26 Jul 2023
Excellent, thank you both. The source of our planted Bursaria spinosa was Greening Australia; I don't know the provenance of seeds. I will make an effort to document the difference of the 2 forms or subspecies or what ever. One small batch of Bursaria (which includes this recorded specimen) which we purchased from Greening Australia is different to the majority of Bursaria that we planted and which we also purchased from GA; I think the majority of planted Bursaria are the local B. spinosa subsp. lasiophylla as ordered from GA. I will collect specimen of both forms we planted as well as Bursaria that occurs in the reserve and was not planted and provide the collected material to botanists for advice and consultation. BTW, GA acknowledged the mistake and gave us free replacement B. spinosa subsp. lasiophylla.
abread111
wrote:
27 Jul 2023
Flora of Australia says:
Within this concept of Bursaria spinosa, two subspecies are recognised:
Erect trees 5–10 m high, shrubby in intermediate developmental stages; glabrescent,
1a. subsp. spinosa
Usually a multi-stemmed shrub less than 5 m high; fairly dense indumentum of appressed hairs persisting on all plant parts
1b. subsp. lasiophylla
The two subspecies are fairly easy to distinguish as the autonym, Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa is replaced by Bursaria subsp. lasiophylla on heavier clay soils at higher altitudes in tablelands and lower mountain ranges in south eastern Australia. Subsp, lasiophylla may represent a clinal form of the common glabrous subspecies.
(Hope the formatting remains OK so this is understandable. Glabrescent means becoming glabrous ie hairless.)
Within this concept of Bursaria spinosa, two subspecies are recognised:
Erect trees 5–10 m high, shrubby in intermediate developmental stages; glabrescent,
1a. subsp. spinosa
Usually a multi-stemmed shrub less than 5 m high; fairly dense indumentum of appressed hairs persisting on all plant parts
1b. subsp. lasiophylla
The two subspecies are fairly easy to distinguish as the autonym, Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa is replaced by Bursaria subsp. lasiophylla on heavier clay soils at higher altitudes in tablelands and lower mountain ranges in south eastern Australia. Subsp, lasiophylla may represent a clinal form of the common glabrous subspecies.
(Hope the formatting remains OK so this is understandable. Glabrescent means becoming glabrous ie hairless.)
abread111
wrote:
27 Jul 2023
Within CNM and also in the Atlas of Living Australia mostly these plants are identified only to species level as Bursaria spinosa without looking at how hairy they are to distinguish the subspecies. CNM does not include subsp spinosa separately at all, and many of the subsp lasiophylla sightings are probably assigned to that subsp on a geographic basis. However ALA does have some sightings of subsp spinosa in the ACT (and definitely in the wider CNM area). Maybe the botanists who compile the ACT Census have assessed these sightings of subsp spinosa and for good reasons have excluded them from the Census of Plants of the ACT. But sightings from the wider CNM area outside the ACT should be treated with caution and allocated to the species and not to the subsp unless the evidence of leaf hairiness is clear in the photographs or notes.
Mike
wrote:
28 Jul 2023
Most locations of ALA records of subsp. spinosa in the ACT are incorrect. One is actually in Tinderry and the Mulligans Flat ones are in Micalong Reserve near Wee Jasper. One of the records for Black Mountain is in the Botanic Gardens so would be planted. You need to look at the actual records which list the location, rather than relying on lat/long which can be mis-transcribed or otherwise incorrect.
abread111
wrote:
28 Jul 2023
Yes, I did look at the actual records for those mapped at Mulligans Flat and saw that the location was erroneous. And there could be other reasons for excluding some records. Is there a way for notifying ALA about errors like this and getting corrections made?
Wee Jasper area is in the wider CNM area so there is a case for listing subsp spinosa in CNM.
Wee Jasper area is in the wider CNM area so there is a case for listing subsp spinosa in CNM.
Please Login or Register to comment.
Nearby sightings
Location information
- Coordinates 149.170517-35.225464
- Altitude 624.3m
- Maps The Fair, Watson Mount Majura
- Places Watson, ACT
Sighting information
- 1 - 3 Abundance
- 7 Mar 2022 04:44 PM Recorded on
- waltraud Recorded by
-
Collections
Discussions.
Additional information
- True Shrub(s) planted
Species information
- Bursaria spinosa Scientific name
- Native Blackthorn, Sweet Bursaria Common name
- Not Sensitive
- Local native
- Non-invasive or negligible
- Up to 1226.48m Recorded at altitude
- 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
