TEST
Plants
Peas
Sighting 1947251

Medicago sp.

Gordon, ACT

Medicago sp. at Gordon, ACT - 10 Oct 2015 05:01 PM
Medicago sp. at Gordon, ACT - 10 Oct 2015 05:01 PM
Medicago sp. at Gordon, ACT - 10 Oct 2015 05:01 PM
Medicago sp. at Gordon, ACT - 10 Oct 2015 05:01 PM
Medicago sp. at Gordon, ACT - 10 Oct 2015 05:01 PM
Medicago sp. at Gordon, ACT - 10 Oct 2015 05:01 PM
Request use of media

Identification history

Medicago sp. 18 Oct 2015 BettyDonWood
Unverified 11 Oct 2015 ArcherCallaway

Identify this sighting

Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.

7 comments

KenT wrote:
   12 Oct 2015
I suspect this is a Medicago species, possibly Medicago arabica but I can't see enough characters to be certain
BettyDonWood wrote:
   18 Oct 2015
It probably is Medicago arabica but definite IDs of Medicago to species level need mature 'seeds'.
KenT wrote:
   18 Oct 2015
Betty, given the difficulty in identifying Medicago to species level on the basis of flowers and leaves alone rather than stating 'inconclusive' could it be considered as Medicago sp.? It would be more useful to others trying to figure out what they have.
BettyDonWood wrote:
   18 Oct 2015
There has been an inconclusive discussion between several of us about adding names as Something sp. I am loath to add any more of such names until the policy about it has firmed up.
AaronClausen wrote:
   18 Oct 2015
Betty yes I agree. I think the system needs a better way to handle/support this. Currently we have been doing a cheap hack by adding actual "species" called "whatever sp." as a cheap way of kind of saying well it's confirmed, but not really. But I think what we really need is a way to say "Insufficient/Inconclusive" but then flag the Genus name E.g. "Medicago" as being the closest known match. Then this shows up on this page, but displayed in a more structured way. Because these dodgy "whatever sp." species that we've been adding in aren't really "species". What do others think???
MattM wrote:
   18 Oct 2015
That sounds like a good idea if you can properly implement it. Perhaps with a comment as to why it is inconclusive?
AaronClausen wrote:
   18 Oct 2015
The comment "why inconclusive" etc already works Matt. This is simply a link from the rejection reason and comment to a kind of stored Genus name. Saying "Yes we rejected it, but the closest we could determine was Calochilus species" etc.

Please Login or Register to comment.

Location information

Sighting information

Additional information

  • True In flower

Species information

  • Medicago sp. Scientific name
  • Common name
  • Not Sensitive
  • Exotic
  • Minor weed or pest
  • Up to 797m Recorded at altitude
  • Machine learning
  • 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
827,657 sightings of 22,686 species from 14,283 members
CCA 3.0 | privacy
NatureMapr is developed by at3am IT Pty Ltd and is proudly Australian made