Eremophila magnifica
species of plant
Eremophila magnifica is a flowering plant in the figwort family, Scrophulariaceae and is endemic to Western Australia. It is an erect shrub with large, clustered leaves and large, attractive lilac-coloured or purple flowers, sometimes so densely clustered that they appear like compound heads of terminal flowers.
Description
Eremophila magnifica is an erect shrub which grows to a height of 0.5–1.5 m (20–60 in). Its leaves, which smell strongly of nutmeg when crushed, are densely clustered near the ends of the branches, bluish-green, lance-shaped, mostly 29–63 mm (1–2 in) long and 6–15 mm (0.2–0.6 in) wide. The edges of the leaves are hairy.
The flowers are borne in groups of 2 to 4 in, clustered near the ends of the branches in leaf axils on hairy stalks which are 10–27 mm (0.4–1 in) long. There are 5 green to dull purple, hairy, linear to triangular sepals which are mostly 11–22 mm (0.4–0.9 in) long. The petals are 17–22 mm (0.7–0.9 in) long and are joined at their lower end to form a tube. The petal tube is lilac-coloured on the outside and deep lilac on the inside of the petal lobes. There are translucent spots on the petal tube and lobes, the outer surface is hairy, the inner surface of the lobes is glabrous and the inside of the tube is filled with long, soft hairs.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Eremophila magnifica” 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 Jul 2, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q15602083. 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 “Eremophila magnifica”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Eremophila magnifica primary sources, Eremophila magnifica archive and Eremophila 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 “Eremophila magnifica”?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Eremophila magnifica” 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.