CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Acacia complanata

species of plant

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 17, 2025
Entity authorityQ4670898 ↗
Source-derived summary

Acacia complanata, commonly known as flat-stemmed wattle, long-pod wattle or donkey's ears, is a species of flowering plant in the family Fabaceae and is endemic to eastern Australia. It is a shrub or tree with branches arching downwards, narrowly winged branchlets, narrowly linear, thinly leathery phyllodes, spherical heads of bright yellow flowers and linear, thinly leathery to crusty, wrinkled pods.

Description

Acacia complanata is a shrub or tree that typically grows to a height of up to 5–6 m (16–20 ft) and has downwards arching branches. Its branchlets are more or less winding, flattened, narrowly winged and glabrous. The phyllodes are narrowly elliptic, mostly 50–100 mm (2.0–3.9 in) long and 10–30 mm (0.39–1.18 in) wide, thinly leathery and glabrous with 7 to 9 prominent veins. The flowers are borne in 4 to 8 spherical heads in axils on peduncles 8–12 mm (0.31–0.47 in) long. The heads are about 6 mm (0.24 in) in diameter with mostly 35 to 45 bright yellow flowers. Flowering occurs roughly from November to March, and the pods are linear, thinly leathery to crusty, glabrous, up to 150 mm (5.9 in) long, 6–10 mm (0.24–0.39 in) wide and rounded over the seeds. The seeds are more or less spherical, dull, dark brown and 4–5 mm (0.16–0.20 in) long.

Taxonomy

Acacia complanata was first formally described in 1842 by the George Bentham from an unpublished description by Allan Cunningham, and the description was published in William Jackson Hooker's London Journal of Botany.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Acacia complanata” as species of plant. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Acacia, complanata and species.

Editorial reviewA sound reference starting point where classification, measurement and the date of the underlying evidence remain visible. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1842—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Acacia, complanata and species providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Acacia complanata”, the useful work is to connect “species of plant” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 17, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q4670898. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1842.

Critical limits

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.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Acacia complanata”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Acacia complanata primary sources, Acacia complanata archive and Acacia research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Acacia complanata”?
  2. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
  3. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Acacia complanata” 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.