Chenopodium murale

Nettle-leaf Goosefoot at The Fair, Watson

Request use of media

Identification history

Chenopodium murale	17 May 2024	abread111
Chenopodium album	16 May 2024	abread111
Chenopodiastrum murale	15 May 2024	SteveBorkowskis
Unidentified	15 May 2024	SteveBorkowskis

Identify this sighting

Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.

Significant sighting

abread111 noted:

28 May 2024

First record of this species on CNM and only second one for the ACT known to the Herbarium

User's notes

GPS was wrong on one of the photos, have adjusted to correct location 35.22768° S, 149.17203° E

13 comments

abread111 wrote:

16 May 2024

VicFlora uses seed characters to distinguish between C. album and C. murale
Seed acutely keeled around equator, dull, finely pitted; pericarp persistent C. murale
Seed obtuse around equator, shining, smooth; pericarp easily detached from seed C. album
There was another plant in the area identified as C. album recently - see Chenopodium album (Fat Hen), which clearly had hairs on the underside of the leaves. PlantNet uses the hairs as a distinguishing feature as well as the seed.
So maybe your sighting is C. murale as I cannot see hairs anywhere, only the occasional white fleck which could be a hair.

waltraud wrote:

17 May 2024

C album is around see Chenopodium album (Fat Hen)

abread111 wrote:

17 May 2024

Yes, I know - cited it in my comment above -link somehow got lost. But C. murale is not on our flora list or the Census. So I think I had better go find this plant and get a sample.
I did this and am now confident that it is C. murale, no hairs anywhere, looked at seeds which are grey and match those shown in VicFlora. Will put up some more photos, and take sample to Herbarium and I am pressing one plant in case the Herbarium wants one.
So well done Steve - a new species for Mt M, and possibly for the ACT!

SteveBorkowskis wrote:

17 May 2024

Thanks Barbara, I’m interested to see what the herbarium comes back with. I thought perhaps it might be C. album growing in an unusual way in the sheltered high nutrient area beneath the Exocarpos, but it was quite different to any C. album I’ve seen before, the ‘nettle-like’ appearance and the more exaggerated toothed margins to the leaves seemed more like C. murale.

abread111 wrote:

18 May 2024

I have found there is one record for C. murale from Canberra in ALA from 2019, maps to a paddock between Whitlam and Kama, has herbarium number CANB 916167.1 and was collected from a sheep camp area.
And there is another one from Scottsdale Conservation Reserve at Bredbo collected by Rosemary Purdie in 2012 CANB 808719.1

abread111 wrote:

28 May 2024

"I am writing to confirm your ID of Chenopodium murale"
Helen Kennedy
Identifications and Living Collections Botanist | Australian National Herbarium
Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research

Tapirlord wrote:

28 May 2024

I take the point, but I'm not sure I would've listed this as being particularly significant; there are lots of images on CNM which would be candidates for significance under the category proposed. I would tend toward only listing 'firsts' if they are endemic or serious weeds elsewhere.

abread111 wrote:

28 May 2024

OK, but a ranger finding a species new to CNM is rather special.

waltraud wrote:

29 May 2024

I'm not sure about the criteria for significance, however "significance" can't be related to the person who finds & records an item (ranger or not)......

abread111 wrote:

29 May 2024

OK, I certainly agree with your comment, Waltraud, and the criteria I use for significance do not include the person who made the sighting. But I am not sure I agree with Tapirlord's tendency to only include "firsts" for plants which are endemic or known to be serious weeds elsewhere.
With 2779 plants listed on CNM as of today, I think any new plant in the bush is significant after more than a decade of recording plants on CNM and importing records from prior surveys. The same may not apply to other categories of organisms with a shorter history on CNM or to more mobile species.
Giving a new plant significance means regular CNM users are alerted to it, and it may be found to be more widespread or important than initially thought.
Let's try to avoid more instances like inkweed where just a few years after the first recorded sighting in the ACT, we now have had an infestation of 1000s of plants and a lot of effort is needed to survey for it in our reserves.

Tapirlord wrote:

30 May 2024

It is certainly an interesting point you raise Waltraud, but not one that is established in existing significant sightings. The nature of the contributor is definitely something that I consider when listing sightings as significant, although it is obviously not an important factor in the discussion; one instance of this is age. 'Significance' is a fluid category so when a particular sighting is on the line between significant and not, I am more inclined to list a sighting If I know the contributor is young and would benefit from the encouragement.

Barb, I can't I agree with the contention that "any new plant in the bush is significant after more than a decade of recording plants on CNM". Principally this is because I add in excess of 100 plant species to CNM each year, either as imports from other projects or as new entries to Naturemapr entirely. Many of these are actually quite common in the region but occur in areas that are yet to be well explored and do not qualify for significance I don't think. However, it is a certainly a good point, and will eventually become relevant I suspect; it is just that we are not there yet.

It is an excellent point you make regarding alerting CNM users, but again I am unsure how this would apply to species with low invasiveness potential. The list of exotic disturbance colonisers is large and will only continue to grow with globalisation. The example you have used, inkweed, is not only known as an invasiveness coloniser of disturbed ground, it is also toxic, so it's discovery and continued reporting within the ACT was significant at the time (noting that this was before I was involved).

I don't mean to say that you stop listing sightings, or that the listing should be removed from this particular record. On second thoughts, the fact that this record appears to be some distance from a track or road, is certainly of interest. However, I am interested in the criteria that we use to declare a sighting significant. More moderators have been using the feature as of late (a good thing) but this has resulted in listings that I think are stretching the existing definitions used. Hence my comments.

waltraud wrote:

30 May 2024

Ciaran, the points were raised by Barb, she does all research etc. I wonder how it is spread; perhaps cultivated for human consumption and spread by birds.

Tapirlord wrote:

30 May 2024

Thanks Waltraud, I am aware of this. Please note how my response has been directed :)

Please Login or Register to comment.