A taxonomic revision of Eucalyptus ser. Argyrophyllae

Abstract

The Eucalyptus ser. Argyrophyllae Blakely is revised. The series consists of the earlier published taxa, E. cinerea, E. cephalocarpa, E. nova-anglica, E. triplex (reduced herein to E. cinerea subsp. triplex), E. alligatrix and E. conspicua, plus two new taxa described herein, E. alligatrix subspp. limaensis and miscella. The taxa occur from far south-eastern Queensland to central and eastern Victoria. A short summary of the species making up the series is given, followed by notes on the diagnostic, morphological features for the series. Notes on the distribution, habitat and conservation status are given for all taxa in the series, and representative specimens are illustrated.

Two new subspecific taxa within the Eucalyptus Series Argyrophyllae for Victoria

“…It is our view that £ triplex is more appropriately placed as a subspecies of £ cinerea, not only because of crown differences being slight, as was demonstrated by Brooker et al (1995), but also because the campanulate fruits, as a distinguishing feature given by the authors, are not exclusive to the taxon but occur widely throughout £ cinerea. Further, in the case of the assertion by Nicolle (2006) regarding differences in crown structure between £ triplex and £ cinerea, we take the view that such differences are genetically fixed rather than a response to environmental conditions.…”

“…The descriptions of the leaf stages common to the taxa of the series used by Brooker et al (1995) Conservation status: The area of occupancy is estimated at less than 20 km J and it is known from no more than five sites. Consequently £ conspicua subsp.…”

“…Eucalyptus alligatrix was distinguished from other 3-flowered members of the series by its crown consisting of mainly of strongly glaucous, mostly adult leaves (some pre-adult leaves were given as being present in the mature crown). Brooker et al (1995) resurrected the series Argyrophyllae and reduced £ triplex to £ cinerea subsp. triplex on the basis of the crown compositions of the two being closer than Johnson and Hill had interpreted.…”