1 Hairy Plantain at Bendoura, NSW
Identification history
| Plantago hispida | 26 Oct 2024 | Tapirlord | ||
| Plantago sp. | 26 Oct 2024 | JasonPStewart | ||
| Plantago muelleri | 25 Oct 2024 | JaneR |
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
User's notes
all plants in this area were very short, looking stunted
4 comments
JasonPStewart
wrote:
26 Oct 2024
Any more photographs please ? – including more of this area of plants, showing more diversity of the forms of individual plants and of their inflorescences / infructescences .
Or your written notes please about the inflorescences / infructescences .
As you write above, i suspect these are stunted plants of a taxon that usually has more flowers/fruits on each of the scapes ( inflorescences / infructescences ) .
Hence, with regards to your identification as *Plantago muelleri*, in the Flora of NSW online PlantNet *Plantago* page key to spp.,
i think these plants' shown here actually identify by going to step 4 (not to step 2)
– stunted so the flowers' / fruits' numbers showing in these two photographs less than nine per scape by conditions causing stunting reduction,
rather than by the genetics per se of these plants' and the genetics of this species of these plants here .
Hence not *Plantago muelleri*, not *Plantago palustris* which it would key out to in the Flora of NSW online PlantNet, if we were not cogniscent of the stunted fertile parts unusual growth shown here for this species .
Also obviously not *Plantago glacialis* .
A good bit of a challenge to articulate into words the species identification from only these two photographs !
Or your written notes please about the inflorescences / infructescences .
As you write above, i suspect these are stunted plants of a taxon that usually has more flowers/fruits on each of the scapes ( inflorescences / infructescences ) .
Hence, with regards to your identification as *Plantago muelleri*, in the Flora of NSW online PlantNet *Plantago* page key to spp.,
i think these plants' shown here actually identify by going to step 4 (not to step 2)
– stunted so the flowers' / fruits' numbers showing in these two photographs less than nine per scape by conditions causing stunting reduction,
rather than by the genetics per se of these plants' and the genetics of this species of these plants here .
Hence not *Plantago muelleri*, not *Plantago palustris* which it would key out to in the Flora of NSW online PlantNet, if we were not cogniscent of the stunted fertile parts unusual growth shown here for this species .
Also obviously not *Plantago glacialis* .
A good bit of a challenge to articulate into words the species identification from only these two photographs !
JasonPStewart
wrote:
27 Oct 2024
@Tapirlord please articulate into words your identification of this species from only these two photographs.
For the reading of all learning more to identify more species of this *Plantago* genus . Especially here.
If you like a comparison species to confer with for articulating differences, IMHO it would be most useful to people here to articulate the visible differences here in this sighting compared to *Plantago varia* .
I am often too busy to go through the process of demonstrating all the reasons why identifications were incorrect and why the subject living organisms identify as another taxon.
Yet articulating these demonstrations of the evidences each of us have awarenesses of,
has the most benefit to people continuing their own life long learning more, IMHO.
Defensibility of species identifications does matter !
(Articulation about science by me from ca. 35 years experiences :
In reality us supposed 'white male rational scientist authority figures' do not exist and do not matter.
Evidences, clearly, honestly, demonstrated by any person of any gender, age and/or background, do matter.
In scholarly philosophy (incl. science) terms: the argumentum ad auctoritate fallacy – aka authority figures do not stand up to scrutiny and do not exist in reality.)
For the reading of all learning more to identify more species of this *Plantago* genus . Especially here.
If you like a comparison species to confer with for articulating differences, IMHO it would be most useful to people here to articulate the visible differences here in this sighting compared to *Plantago varia* .
I am often too busy to go through the process of demonstrating all the reasons why identifications were incorrect and why the subject living organisms identify as another taxon.
Yet articulating these demonstrations of the evidences each of us have awarenesses of,
has the most benefit to people continuing their own life long learning more, IMHO.
Defensibility of species identifications does matter !
(Articulation about science by me from ca. 35 years experiences :
In reality us supposed 'white male rational scientist authority figures' do not exist and do not matter.
Evidences, clearly, honestly, demonstrated by any person of any gender, age and/or background, do matter.
In scholarly philosophy (incl. science) terms: the argumentum ad auctoritate fallacy – aka authority figures do not stand up to scrutiny and do not exist in reality.)
Tapirlord
wrote:
27 Oct 2024
Hey Jason, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, that is a lot of text.
My reasons for Plantago hispida are the relatively short sepals, in comparision to P.gaudichaudii or P.varia where they are significantly longer, the stunted growth habit and the rocky moss-dominanted habitat that these plants are growing in. All these features are very typical of P.hispida in our region. A good view of the leaf axil would confirm.
My reasons for Plantago hispida are the relatively short sepals, in comparision to P.gaudichaudii or P.varia where they are significantly longer, the stunted growth habit and the rocky moss-dominanted habitat that these plants are growing in. All these features are very typical of P.hispida in our region. A good view of the leaf axil would confirm.
JasonPStewart
wrote:
27 Oct 2024
Okay. Thanks for articulating these species differences for all here to learn more.
Yes, showing evidence of leaves' axils (meaning: at leaves' bases where they join the stem) would confirm this.
I think good to add to your articulation, that, in the second photograph we can just make out the multiple "Sepals with a pilose keel" on the back of the dried out, bent downwards, old inflorescence there. Also shown a bit in photograph 1.
Please try again carefully reading my text.
Long here in the context of average comments here.
Really concise short, many points packed together, if it were in a scientific botany and philosophy scholarly article context, which would unpack every point and aspect and context, which my second comment above of course is not in – So i articulated my points fully that i needed to, in unpacked pithy (short) form.
Yes, showing evidence of leaves' axils (meaning: at leaves' bases where they join the stem) would confirm this.
I think good to add to your articulation, that, in the second photograph we can just make out the multiple "Sepals with a pilose keel" on the back of the dried out, bent downwards, old inflorescence there. Also shown a bit in photograph 1.
Please try again carefully reading my text.
Long here in the context of average comments here.
Really concise short, many points packed together, if it were in a scientific botany and philosophy scholarly article context, which would unpack every point and aspect and context, which my second comment above of course is not in – So i articulated my points fully that i needed to, in unpacked pithy (short) form.
Location information
- Coordinates 149.706178-35.499869
- Altitude 658.1m
- Maps Back Creek TSR
- Places Bendoura, NSW
Sighting information
- 4 - 15 Abundance
- 19 Oct 2024 02:12 PM Recorded on
- JaneR Recorded by
-
Collections
Plants Other Wildflowers & Herbs JaneR Canberra & Southern Tablelands NatureMapr Plantago hispida
Additional information
- Less than 10cm Plant height
- True In flower
Species information
- Plantago hispida Scientific name
- Hairy Plantain Common name
- Not Sensitive
- Local native
- Non-invasive or negligible
- Up to 1572.47m Recorded at altitude
-
In flower
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