CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Cordyline australis

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 revisionSep 14, 2026
Entity authorityQ2379130
Source-derived summary

Cordyline australis, commonly known as the cabbage tree, or by its Māori name of tī or tī kōuka, is a widely branched monocot tree endemic to New Zealand.

It grows up to 20 metres (66 feet) tall with a stout trunk and sword-like leaves, which are clustered at the tips of the branches and can be up to 1 metre (3 feet 3 inches) long. With its tall, straight trunk and dense, rounded heads, the tree is a characteristic feature of the New Zealand landscape. It is common over a wide latitudinal range from the far north of the North Island to the south of the South Island. It grows in a broad range of habitats.

Māori used it as a source of food, particularly in the South Island, where it was cultivated in areas where other crops would not grow. It provided durable fibre for textiles. Hardy and fast growing, it is widely planted in New Zealand gardens, parks and streets, and numerous cultivars are available. It can also be found in large numbers in island restoration projects, such as Tiritiri Matangi Island, where it was among the first seedling trees to be planted.

It is also grown as an ornamental tree in higher latitude Northern Hemisphere countries with maritime climates, including parts of the upper West Coast of the United States, Canada and the British Isles, where its common names include Cornish palm, cabbage palm, Torbay palm and Torquay palm.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Cordyline australis” is species of plant. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Cordyline, australis and species, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA sound reference starting point where classification, measurement and the date of the underlying evidence remain visible. The current 242-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Cordyline, australis and species is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “species of plant” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 14, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2379130. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. 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 “Cordyline australis”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Cordyline australis primary sources, Cordyline australis archive and Cordyline 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 “Cordyline australis”?
  2. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
  3. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Cordyline australis” 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.