Stylidium cf. montanum at Dry Plain, NSW

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Please refer to infomation i have added in to these species pages here : Stylidium montanum
.

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

Tapirlord wrote:

8 Dec 2024

Yeah ok

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Interesting, thanks. Do my previous confirmed sightings of S. graminifolium at this site (4499946 - east/nth paddock, 4496755 & 4499045 - west/sth paddock) need review?

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

In these first three photographs please note some botanical diagnostic features (in my humble opinion) of:
• each of the scapes appear hairless (glabrous or glabrescent) below each bottom flower all the way down to their bases above the leaves.
• these leaves have width more than the usual average width that *Stylidium graminifolium* has.
• these leaves' undersides' midribs appear to have some distinctness but appear not to have prominence .
• these leaves' undersides' laminas' on both sides of the midribs appear not bi-furrowed .
• these leaves' uppersides' laminas' surfaces appear continuous and ±smooth even while v-shaped, not bi-furrowed (3 dimensional change in surface – though in parts we can make out the outlines of the leaves' undersides' midribs on the uppersides as apparently sometimes the uppersides' lines of cells bordering the undersides' midrib ? ) .
• these leaves' appaearance has the colour and matt appearance of paler green and not really/not much glaucous (white waxy looking surface 'bloom') compared to *Stylidium graminifolium*
• these inflorescences' scapes appear finer diameter than usual *Stylidium graminifolium* .
• most but not all of these inflorescences have less flowers, than usual *Stylidium graminifolium*
.

I reckon these plants, according to what we can see in these photographs, appear closer to *Stylidium montanum* and have introgression of *Stylidium graminifolium* genes .
Another way to express that view of this morphology is that if these plants and populations of them have long term stable populations' genetics and not recent hybrids nor recent introgression,
then quite likely and reasonable for me to say that these plants may represent another taxon (subspecies or species) that has not yet been properly separated and given a published description, albeit with apparent affinities with *Stylidium montanum* and *Stylidium graminifolium* .
@AndyRoo . @TapirLord .

And again please refer to the published information linked in and summaries i have quoted of some of it,
in the species pages, including here: Stylidium graminifolium .

Briefly, now I am looking at your nearby located sightings you listed in the comment above .

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

AndyRoo wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Thanks Jason, a lot of tech jargon and info for both Stylidium species which I'm not across, although presume Ciaran (@TapirLord ) is? I'll need some time to try and digest it.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Yeah all fair enough and good digesting .
This increased detail is what's happening nowadays with the studies of this group of Stylidium species in SE Au .

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

Tapirlord wrote:

10 Dec 2024

Andy I would have a look at the Vicflora key for now whilst seperating these two, but it does seem that you're plants are actually S.montanum my mistake. If you'd be happy to tag me in any sightings that need changing that would be fantastic. There does seem to be some activity in the Stylidium space, we'll monitor and change as needed.

JasonPStewartNMsnc2016 wrote:

12 Dec 2024