Acacia urophylla
species of plant
Acacia urophylla, commonly known as pointed leaved acacia, tall-leaved acacia, veined wattle or net-leaved wattle, is a shrub of the genus Acacia and the subgenus Phyllodineae endemic to Western Australia.
Description
The erect slender and open shrub typically grows to a height of 1 to 3 metres (3 to 10 ft). The prominently yellow-ribbed branchlets have pungent and hardened stipules with a length of 2 to 8 millimetres (0.079 to 0.315 in). The thin evergreen phyllodes have an obliquely lanceolate to ovate shape and are usually 5 to 11 centimetres (2.0 to 4.3 in) in length with a width of 1 to 4 cm (0.39 to 1.57 in). They are narrowed at base and have two to four prominent longitudinal nerves on the face. It blooms from May to October and produces cream-yellow flowers. The inflorescences occur as two to five headed racemes, usually with two on each node. The flower heads have a spherical shape and contain 8 to 12 loosely bunched pale yellow or white flowers. After flowering black sub-woody seed pods with a twisted narrowly linear shape that are around 14 cm (5.5 in) in length and 2 to 4 mm (0.079 to 0.157 in) wide. Each pod contains severalglossy dark brown seeds with an oblong to elliptic shape and a length of 3 to 4 mm (0.118 to 0.157 in).
“Acacia urophylla” enters the record as species of plant. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Acacia, urophylla and species can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Acacia urophylla” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Acacia, urophylla and species provides the most credible route into that argument.
Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 26, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q15289276. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
Scientific names, classifications and consensus can change while older terminology persists in catalogues and historical literature. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Acacia urophylla”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Acacia urophylla primary sources, Acacia urophylla archive and Acacia research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Acacia urophylla”?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Acacia urophylla” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.