CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Acacia blakei

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 revisionApr 23, 2025
Entity authorityQ15211586 ↗
Source-derived summary

Acacia blakei, commonly known as Blake's wattle or Wollomombi wattle, is a species of flowering plant in the family Fabaceae and is endemic to eastern Australia. It is an erect or spreading tree or shrub, with straight or curved phyllodes, yellow, pale yellow or cream-coloured flowers arranged in cylindrical heads in up to three axils, and straight to curved, firmly papery to thinly leathery pods.

Description

Acacia blakei is an erect or spreading tree or shrub that typically grows to a height of less than 15 m (49 ft) and has fissured grey coloured bark. It has light green to brown branchlets, sometimes covered with a white, powdery bloom or with fine scales. Its phyllodes are straight to curved, thinly leathery, mostly glabrous, 40–170 mm (1.6–6.7 in) long and, 7–20 mm (0.28–0.79 in) wide with many closely spaced veins and a small gland near the base. The flowers are yellow to pale yellow or cream-coloured, arranged in racemes in up to twelve cylindrical spikes 20–60 mm (0.79–2.36 in) long in axils on a peduncles 1–5 mm (0.039–0.197 in) long, the flowers. Flowering occurs between August and November and the seed pods are straight to curved, glabrous to sparsely hairy, 30–100 mm (1.2–3.9 in) long and 2–4 mm (0.079–0.157 in) wide and firmly papery to thinly leathery and smooth. The seeds are broadly elliptic, black, 3.5–5.2 mm (0.14–0.20 in) long.

Taxonomy

Acacia blakei was first formally described in 1974 by Leslie Pedley in Contributions from the Queensland Herbarium. The specific epithet (blakei) honours Stanley Thatcher Blake.

Editorial summary

“Acacia blakei” enters the record as species of plant. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Acacia, blakei and species can confirm, complicate or overturn.

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—1974—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Acacia, blakei and species.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Acacia blakei” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Acacia, blakei and species provides the most credible route into that argument.

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 Apr 23, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q15211586. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1974.

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 blakei”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Acacia blakei primary sources, Acacia blakei 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 blakei”?
  2. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
  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 blakei” 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.