Microtis eremicola
species of plant
Microtis eremicola, commonly known as the desert mignonette orchid or dryland onion orchid, is a species of orchid endemic to the south-west of Western Australia. It has a single hollow, onion-like leaf and up to fifty small, dull green to greenish-yellow flowers. This onion orchid is common in soil pockets on granite outcrops in inland areas, mostly between Hyden and Balladonia.
Description
Microtis eremicola is a terrestrial, perennial, deciduous, herb with an underground tuber and a single erect, smooth, tubular leaf 150–400 mm (6–20 in) long and 5–8 mm (0.2–0.3 in) wide. Between twenty and fifty dull green to yellowish-green flowers are crowded along a flowering stem 200–500 mm (8–20 in) tall. The flower lean downwards and are 3–4 mm (0.1–0.2 in) long and 2–3 mm (0.08–0.1 in) wide. The dorsal sepal is 2–2.5 mm (0.08–0.1 in) long and 2.5–3 mm (0.098–0.12 in) wide and forms a hood over the rest of the flower. The lateral sepals are 2.5–3 mm (0.098–0.12 in) long, 1 mm (0.04 in) wide and curl downwards. The petals are 1.5–2 mm (0.06–0.08 in) long, 1 mm (0.04 in) wide and are held under the dorsal sepal. The labellum is oblong, 3–3.5 mm (0.12–0.14 in) long, 1–2 mm (0.04–0.08 in) wide and turns downwards with thickened, irregular edges and a prominently cleft tip.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Microtis eremicola” as species of plant. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as species of plant. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 22, 2021. The linked authority identifier is Q51041638. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. 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 “Microtis eremicola”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Microtis eremicola primary sources, Microtis eremicola archive and Microtis 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 “Microtis eremicola”?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Microtis eremicola” 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.