Centaurium sp.

Centaury at Stirling Park

Request use of media

Identification history

	Centaurium sp.	7 Jan 2024	Tapirlord
	Centaurium erythraea	5 Jan 2024	Mike

Identify this sighting

Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.

9 comments

Mike wrote:

7 Jan 2024

Basal leaves present, making it C. erythraea.

natureguy wrote:

8 Jan 2024

Yeah I'd be pretty okay with this being C. erythraea. @Tapirlord what do you think? Also not sure if you saw my comment on one of the other sightings? Thanks

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Jan 2024

If you are happy Luke, then I am happy to move the ID further. Yes, I am aware of your other comments, but I have not had a chance to properly look into them (they are on my list). If you are correct, then it will mean some serious corrections I imagine as it overturns years of CNM precedent.

Mike wrote:

8 Jan 2024

What do you need for differentiation? They are both weeds and I don’t usually bother recording them, except for local context.

natureguy wrote:

9 Jan 2024

Yeah I do also tend to agree with Mike's comment here too. It hasn't been one I'm particularly fussed about getting to species since they're a very common and widespread weed and the records are not really contributing to any sort of conservation significance since I'd say they're pretty widespread through most patches of woodland and grassland nowadays.

Tapirlord wrote:

9 Jan 2024

I mean, if that is the sentiment then is it worth my time to look into it at all? I think Mike's point goes more to actually submitting sightings of this group, and less to our identifications of them. I hardly record Centaurium when I am out in the field so would agree with him there. However, it has always been my view that we should always assign the most accurate ID possible.

natureguy wrote:

9 Jan 2024

Yeah that makes sense. I do agree, definitely should try to have the most accurate ID possible. And yes makes sense about submitting sightings of these, I don't really take too much note of them either to be honest. If you have the time to have a look that would be great but no stress, thanks :). @Mike usually the basal rosette (or lack of) should be the most reliable ID feature but flower and plant structure may be useful too, I'll have a bit more of a poke around for info myself too.

Tapirlord wrote:

9 Jan 2024

Sweet, i'll keep it on the list then. But no promises for the moment, I am rather busy!

Mike wrote:

9 Jan 2024

There are plenty of other plants more worthy of your attention. C. erythraea is more common than C. tenuiflorum. I use the basal roseete and sometimes pull the plant out to photograph the base, The calyx and corolla tube is a key feature but rarely seen in the photos. Plants of South Eastern New South Wales (Betty Wood) says the plants hybridise, making it even harder for identification. Weeds of the South East (Richardson et. al.) also refers to C. pulchellum 'rarely recorded but possibly overlooked for C. tenuiflorum' but this is shown as a synonym in PlantNET. Flora of the ACT (Burbidge and Gray) gives a good description but it is a bit much for me. There is also a native centaury Schenkia australis (previously Centaurium spicatum but is does not grow in this region.
For scientific reasons we should use the most accurate ID where enough features are clear, but for most purposes Centaurium sp. is adequate, given there is little likelihood of controlling the plants.
I can't see the high definition photos of sightings but most of them are of the tops of the pretty pink flowers so don't show enough identifying features for me. On the basis of probability they are mostly C. erythraea but I have been caught out that way before. Maybe there could be some general advice, applicable to most plants, that side-on photos of flowers are very useful.
I am sorry I have caused this trouble because I did not take close-ups for this sighting, but I was trying out a new camera when my phone ran out of energy.

Please Login or Register to comment.