stewartj-54_2014-'s Journal

Ficus hispida botanical key features, including:

• Opposite (attached) leaves, and
leaves' outline' shapes, bases' shapes and apices' shapes, and
forms including papery lamina
(not thick as per Ficus congesta), and
canopy new growth leaves pale green
– (not red per Ficus congesta).

• Figs depressed globose (shape)
– (not pyriform to discoid per Ficus congesta).

• Figs densely brown-pubescent (or velvety white hairs, fide Cooper & Cooper 2004: 324)
– (Figs here: not pyriform to discoid ..., not ribbed, not glabrous nor hispid; nor ostiole as depressed, as per the Ficus congesta figs' form)

• Fruits shapes and surfaces appearances match this species
– (not Ficus congesta).

Etcetera ...
.

Ref's;

• Flora of Australia: vascular plants:
Species of Ficus
Adapted from: Chew, W.-L. (1989).
Ficus.
In: Flora of Australia volume 3.
Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra.
https://keybase.rbg.vic.gov.au/keys/show/524
.

• Flowering plants of Queensland:
Species of Ficus
By: Tony @bean_ar Bean
https://keybase.rbg.vic.gov.au/keys/show/13193
.

• RFK ed. 8 (2020) : https://apps.lucidcentral.org/rainforest/text/entities/ficus_hispida.htm
.
• Flora of Au online partly updated: https://profiles.ala.org.au/opus/foa/profile/Ficus%20hispida
.

Re: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=773248038247826&set=a.440980548141245&type=3&comment_id=989557675991793

Here the white spots on these still ripening fruits coloured pale reddish and green,
and attached on to "inflorescence stems short, knobby, outward or upward pointing"
and these here "peduncles 30–50 mm long"
Ref': Coopers (2004) page 328,
confirm that this tree identifies to:
Ficus variegata

To doubly prove confirmation you may check the form of the leaves with,
a zoom lens into the canopy,
and any on the ground from the canopy above.

Ficus variegata has:
"Leaf blades rather large, about 14-21 x 9-13 cm.
...
Stipules smooth. "
Ref': RFK ed. 8 : https://apps.lucidcentral.org/rainforest/text/entities/ficus_variegata.htm

And "leaves ...glabrous [hairless]; petioles 50–140 mm long; stipules green or pink, 10–20 mm long"
Ref': Coopers (2004) page 328.
.

(Not Ficus racemosa – having yellow–orange–bright red ripe fruits,
after ripening from all over green unripe fruits without white spots,
attached onto inflorescence stems longer with longer branches and that often hang downwards with the figs on them,
"Leaves ... 50–200 x 30–90 mm ...; petioles 20–70 mm long; stipules 5–20 mm long, minutely hairy. "
their much shorter "peduncles 5–12 mm long"
Ref': Coopers (2004) page: 326
and
"Leaf blades about 6-20 x 4-9 cm ".
Ref': RFK ed.8 : https://apps.lucidcentral.org/rainforest/text/entities/ficus_racemosa.htm

And "Ultimate branchlets, stipules or petioles hairy ."
Ref': https://keybase.rbg.vic.gov.au/keys/show/13193
) .

The Angiosperm PhyloGeny Website - https://www.mobot.org/mobot/research/apweb/
has more up to date-ness broadly across it.

APG IV version still current as the authoritative basis for angiosperm classifications globally - last updated 2024 April 10th .
Quotation: "

Stevens, P. F. (2001 onwards). Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 14, July 2017 [and more or less continuously updated since].
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/.
peter.stevens@mobot.org (Missouri Botanical Garden), or stevensp@umsl.edu (University of Missouri, St Louis)
Website originally developed by Hilary Davis.
Page last updated: 04/10/2024 22:51:31

This recent scholarly, many authors' globally, publication:
Phylogenomics and the Rise of the Angiosperms.
in Nature.
Will add some more parts to further updates to the APG.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07324-0 .

See more here:
https://www.facebook.com/tropicalherbarium/posts/913385637464009
.

... Than POWO which has some minority of parts still 10 to 20 or more years out of date and much more minority of it several years out of date .
I have lists of some decades out of date minority parts and moreso several years out of date larger minority parts, of POWO.

https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/observations/151064121

.

European–ethnocentric–Australian FWIW key to species in this genus Sarcopteryx in Qld:
Reference:
Guymer, Gordon P. (2023)
Species of Sarcopteryx, in:
KeyBase: Flowering plants of Queensland,
https://keybase.rbg.vic.gov.au/keys/show/12943
Viewed: 2023 November 22nd.
Quotation of the export text: "

1 Fruits distinctly stipitate, stipes 2–5 mm long; SE Qld (south from Fraser Island) - Sarcopteryx stipata

1 Fruits sessile or on stipes to 1 mm long; N Qld (north from Mackay) 2

2 Branchlet leaves with 2–4 leaflets 3
2 Branchlet leaves with 4–10 leaflets 4

3 Leaf rachises 1–4 cm long; leaflets elliptic to obovate (length: width 2–2.5:1), ± concolorous, margins usually recurved, acute to shortly acuminate, lateral veins 7–9; fruits yellow with pink flush - Sarcopteryx montana

3 Leaf rachises 2.5–8.5 cm long; leaflets elliptic-lanceolate or ovate-lanceolate (length: width 2.4–3.2:1), markedly discolorous when dried, margins flat, acuminate, lateral veins 10–13 pairs; fruits pink or red - Sarcopteryx martyana

4 Fruits triquetrous with wings 3–4 mm wide; petals elliptic-oblong, not clawed, 2–2.5 mm long, scales 1–1.25 mm long, pubescent on margins; domatia pockets not obvious - Sarcopteryx acuminata

4 Fruits subglobose, keeled or compressed at sutures; petals suborbicular, 1–2 mm long, often clawed, scales as long as petals, pubescent; domatia pockets prominent - Sarcopteryx reticulata
" .

Regarding Lomandra longifolia, Lomandra hystrix, Lomandra fluviatilis, Lomandra spicata, Lomandra montana, et al .

For our reference:
These, original taxa descriptions' publications :

(online in the Biodiversity Heritage Library ):

• Lomandra longifolia Labill. (1805): https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40848191
• Xerotes hystrix R.Br. (1810): https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2954418
• Xerotes longifolia var. hystrix (R.Br.) Domin (1915): https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38719047
• Lomandra hystrix (R.Br.) L.R.Fraser & Vickery (1937): https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34904060
• Lomandra longifolia subsp. hystrix (R.Br.) A.T.Lee (1962):
[still searching for this publication online?] ... .

Keys' ref's:

• https://keybase.rbg.vic.gov.au/keys/show/5740
• https://keybase.rbg.vic.gov.au/keys/show/9297

.
.

Hollandaea species, eg. as at 2012, currently known distributions

Quotations:

Distribution and habitat:
...
Hollandaea diabolica is endemic to the Wet Tropics bioregion in north-eastern Queensland, WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY KNOWN TO OCCUR on the eastern fall of the Main Coast Range west of Mossman (see above) and an area on the East Mulgrave River to the south of Mt Bellenden Ker (Map 1).
...
Hollandaea porphyrocarpa is endemic to the Wet Tropics bioregion in north-eastern Queensland, WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY KNOWN TO OCCUR on the eastern fall of the Main Coast Range west of Mossman (Map 1).
...
Hollandaea riparia is endemic to the Wet Tropics bioregion in north-eastern Queensland, WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY ONLY KNOWN TO OCCUR as a rheophyte in the Roaring Meg Creek catchment (south of Cooktown) (Map 1).
...
Hollandaea sayeriana is endemic to the Wet Tropics bioregion in north-eastern Queensland, WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY KNOWN TO OCCUR between Mt Bellenden Ker (south of Cairns) and the Innisfail area, including the eastern edge of the Atherton Tableland (Map 1).
.

Reference:

Ford, Andrew J. & Peter H. Weston (2012)
A taxonomic revision of Hollandaea F. Muell. (Proteaceae).
Austrobaileya 8 (4): 670–687 .
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Ford/publication/287261739_A_taxonomic_revision_of_Hollandaea_FMuell_Proteaceae/links/5d0ff42392851cf440463ec0/A-taxonomic-revision-of-Hollandaea-FMuell-Proteaceae.pdf
.

English language paraphrases from the original species descriptions publications – of the differences, in their authors' terms :

Hibbertia fasciculata R.Br. ex DC. (1818)
• mature leaves glabrous,
• stems erect and branching, hairy,
• styles subdiverging
→ https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41046603
.

Hibbertia prostrata Hook. (1834)
• mature leaves hairy,
• stems decumbent–procumbent, hairy,
• single style (apparently – was thought and thought a single carpel, – at the time of description).
→ https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/796127
.
Hibbertia fasciculata var. prostrata (Hook.) Hook.f. (1860)
→ https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/28465113
.

In this context of Vic. .– for what iNat 'taxonomy' is worth.

I'm not surprised people have confusion about this, both professional botanists and citizen scientists into plants (amateurs).

Different concepts of the taxa: Hibbertia fasciculata and Hibbertia prostrata,
here especially Hibbertia fasciculata var. prostrata, and other infra-specific taxa, are used by each of the:
• Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) – Australian Plant Name Census (APC).
• Flora of Vic. online VicFlora
• Tasmanian herbarium
• Flora of NSW
• iNaturalist volunteer 'curated' 'taxonomy'
• POWO
• etcetera .

References:

• Flora of Vic. online VicFlora:
Hibbertia fasciculata var. prostrata page, quotation: "

The anthers are longer, flowers larger and habit more robust than in the type variety, Hibbertia fasciculata var. fasciculata, which is restricted to New South Wales. Despite the varietal epithet ('prostrata'), the plant is rarely, if ever, truly prostrate in Victoria.

" .

Quotation of the Synonymy (web page tab): "

Synonyms
Hibbertia prostrata Hook.

".
→ https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/taxon/2737c588-39b4-4ac4-ba31-579d464cef75
.

• Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) and Australian Plant Name Census (APC):
quotation: "

APC Comment: Treated as Hibbertia fasciculata var. prostrata in Vic, and as Hibbertia prostrata in Tas.
"

→https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/search/names?product=APNI&tree.id=&name=Hibbertia+fasciculata&inc._scientific=&inc.scientific=on&inc._cultivar=&inc._other=&max=100&display=&search=true
.

VicFlora conferred with iNat, spelling it out about the taxa concepts:

• Hibbertia fasciculata var. prostrata in the sense of VicFlora (taxon concept)
has equivalence to Hibbertia prostrata in the sense of iNat's species 'taxon concept'.

• Hibbertia fasciculata var. fasciculata in the sense of VicFlora (taxon concept – and only occurs in NSW and Qld)
has equivalence to Hibbertia fasciculata in the sense of iNat's species 'taxon concept', and only occurs in NSW and Qld.

• Hibbertia fasciculata var. prostrata has no equivalence to Hibbertia fasciculata var. fasciculata (in any accurate botanical information).

• The taxon concept of Hibbertia prostrata has no equivalence to Hibbertia fasciculata types' specimens' based narrow sense taxon concept (in any accurate botanical information).

• Hibbertia fasciculata types' specimens' based narrow sense taxon concept
differs from Hibbertia fasciculata types' specimens' based broad sense taxon concept.

• Hibbertia fasciculata var. prostrata and Hibbertia prostrata mutually equivalent in types' specimens' based taxon concept,
do not have identity equivalence to Hibbertia fasciculata types' specimens' based broad sense taxon concept and again saying,
also do not have equivalence to Hibbertia fasciculata types' specimens' based narrow sense taxon concept.
.
Furthermore according to POWO recently updated more:

• → https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:317036-1

• → https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:316951-1
.
→ https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/journal/stewartj-53_2014-/84157-hibbertia-prostrata-cf-hibbertia-fasciculata-s-l-s-s-and-var-prostrata-in-the-context-of-vic-for-what-inat-taxonomy-is-worth
.

https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/observations/85449695

Reason:
Not sufficient evidence in visual information nor any diagnostic features notes,
to identify this more than genus
ie. not sufficient to identify to species as:

• not suitable for Computer Vision species machine learning purposes,
• not suitable for future proof identification if morphology or phylogeny taxonomy work further splits [genus or higher rank taxon] species into segregate species,
• not suitable for iNat users learning multiple [genus or higher rank taxon] species to learn the above opined species identification from.

I set this observation to Research Grade for this genus [genus or higher rank taxon].

Reason :
IMHO this does not identify to Schoenus maschalinus Roem. & Schult. .

These two photographs look more like either Schoenus apogon or Schoenus tesquorum.

Please check the botanical key(s) diagnostic features and reassess this identification, eg. The Flora of Vic. online Vicflora here.

Reason:

These two photographs show the botanical diagnostic features of this species .

Reference:

• Flora of Vic. online VicFlora
.

Reason:

This single photograph shows the well known to me in field botanical surveys in this region since 1988–,
field spotting foliage features of this species .

Further botanical information reference:

• Flora of Vic. online VicFlora
.

...

.