I must agree to some extent George, for I have found the same result (either the Badja Gum or the Red Ironbark, three fruited rough barked gum tree) if following some available botanical keys. (This is some sort of confirmation we tried to do the right thing!)
But I must say Phil is very probably very right. In fact, he is!
What happens here is that we have found some sort of "glitch" in all those "taxonomic filters" called botanical identification keys. None is perfect. Once again, the very valuable taxonomic botanical identification tools have a "small hole". Not their fault, or the botanists behind them, whom deserve as much praise as us, trying to unveil the well covered mystery. What happens here is a small matter of interpretation, in this case (I think) for bark type.
Please forget for a second those bark related aspects, and focus on the reproductive organs only, since Benoit very nicely provided us with complete photographic samples with size measurement included. Forget all the extra details (bark, tree habit, apparent age), and focus on flower buds, capsules, and maybe, adult leaves. What do you see?
PS: I am, at once, attempting as "blind tests" as possible with eucalypt knowledgeable botanist friends. There are some stories to tell you about, about those trees and their progeny. But not for today! Will be your gift if you see what should be seen!
Message Thread | Skip to this response ↓
« Back to index