Hairy foliage & anthers that don't exceed the tepals would make this L.meridonalis (true form). Personally I'm in favour of lumping the three (L.densiflora, L.flaccida & L.meridonalis).
Happy with this idea - VicFlora has done this and made 3 subspecies of L. meridionalis separated by very minor differences in size and colour of the floral structures. So it is really just a change of name with L. densiflora now a subspecies of L. meridionalis. (BTW the anthers are visible at the bottom of the second photo - pure luck.!)
Does this mean L meridionalis subsp. densiflora? Barb we don't have L meridionalis or L. meridionalis subsp. densiflora on our species list These are the tricky bits for the Flora list update when I shake the dust off my sandals and leave: are there 2 species/subspecies or is the previously L densiflora now L meridionalis subsp. densiflora...?
Well, in VicFlora there is species L. meridionalis with 3 subspecies subsp meridionalis, densiflora and flaccida instead of 3 species. We need to check what the ACT Census has done...
The Census has L meridionalis and L densiflora; since it is reviewed every now and then, but I don't think on an annual basis, it might not have the latest botanical decisions. So we might decide to go with the Census list of both species, and change later should the Census change. I do prefer to stick to one reference (the Census), otherwise things get too complicated...