identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
9D7287E18B30FFA8F663FBD57F61FC4A.text	9D7287E18B30FFA8F663FBD57F61FC4A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Melichrus	<div><p>History of taxonomic study of Melichrus</p><p>Luis Née made the earliest known herbarium specimen collection of a Melichrus species in Port Jackson, New South Wales, in 1793 (Orchard 1999; JSTOR Global Plants, see http:// plants.jstor.org/). The specimen, housed at Herbario Real Jardín Botánico (MA 476478), was later described by Antonio José Cavanilles, as Ventenatia procumbens Cav. (Cavanilles 1797, p. 28 &amp; tab. 349). The first use of the name Melichrus was by Robert Brown in Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland. (Brown 1810) in which two species were described; Melichrus urceolatus R.Br. and M. rotatus R.Br. Brown described Melichrus urceolatus from material collected by botanical illustrator Ferdinand Lukas Bauer in 1804, at ‘(J.) [Newcastle; New South Wales]’ (Brown 1810, p. 539; JSTOR Global Plants, see http://plants.jstor.org/; BM 000797778) and Melichrus rotatus from personal collections made at ‘(J.) [Sydney; New South Wales]’ and ‘(T.) [Fraser Island; Queensland]’ between 1802 and 1804 (Brown 1810, p. 539; Orchard 1999). Brown (1810) acknowledged that Melichrus rotatus was synonymous with Ventenatia procumbens but did not make the recombination using the epithet ‘ procumbens ’ within the new genus, as nomenclatural precedence was not yet a formal protocol at that time. When Brown (1810) transferred the only other congeneric Ventenatia humifusa to Astroloma R.Br., the name Ventenatia fell out of use. Later, nomenclatural precedence was acknowledged by English botanist George Claridge Druce, the name Melichrus procumbens (Cav.) Druce was formalised (Druce 1917) and M. rotatus R.Br. was synonymised as a superfluous name.</p><p>Brown (1810) also placed Melichrus in a hierarchical classification for the first time when erecting the family Epacridaceae and established two infrafamilial sections based on fruit type. Melichrus was included in section 1, characterised by indehiscent fruits with one ovule per locule. This section was subsequently formalised as the tribe Styphelieae (Bartling 1830) and remains currently recognised (Watson 1967; Kron et al. 2002; Puente-Lelièvre et al. 2016; Crayn et al. 2020).</p><p>Allan Cunningham collected and recognised three new species of Melichrus . The first was collected from the ‘Plains at Bathurst’ (Field 1825, p. 323) and called M. medius A.Cunn. due to appearing to be ‘intermediate between the two already described species [presumably referring to M. rotatus and M. urceolatus]’ (Field 1825, p. 323). Augustin Pyramis De Candolle described M. erubescens A.Cunn. ex DC. and M. adpressus A.Cunn. ex DC. from dried specimens collected by Cunningham in ‘plains … around Liverpool’ and ‘sterile land near Wellington Valley’ respectively (De Candolle 1839, p. 740).</p><p>In the late 1860s, both Ferdinand von Mueller (1868) and George Bentham (1868) revised Melichrus in respective treatises on the Australian flora. Bentham retained a great deal of the generic structure of Styphelieae established by Brown, whereas Mueller had a broader concept of the genus Styphelia and expanded this to incorporate many genera, including Melichrus . Generic delimitation within Styphelieae remained uncertain, with early authors on the family divided (see Bentham and Hooker 1876; Drude 1887; Watson 1967) until recent molecular work decisively delimited Melichrus as a monophyletic genus and Styphelia was recircumscribed (Puente-Lelièvre et al. 2016; Crayn et al. 2020).</p><p>Bentham and Mueller also differed regarding species delimitation within the group. Bentham, working entirely from dried specimens, could not detect notable morphological differences among most of the described species of Melichrus . Accordingly, M. adpressus, M. erubescens and M. medius were subsumed into M. urceolatus, and rotatus was retained (Bentham 1868). Mueller, like Bentham, synonymised M. erubescens and M. medius with M. urceolatus . Melichrus urceolatus was subsequently transferred to Styphelia as S. urceolata (R.Br.) F.Muell. and M. rotatus was retained as S. rotata F.Muell. A third species, Styphelia cunninghamii F.Muell. was named from two collections – Hermann Beckler: Hastings River (New South Wales) and Walter Hill from southern Queensland (von Mueller 1868, p. 39). Mueller chose to synonymise M. adpressus that was originally described from collections made in central western New South Wales with Styphelia cunninghamii presumably based on De Candolle’s description of M. adpressus as ‘a very distinctive species… [with] adpressedly imbricate leaves’ (De Candolle 1839, p. 740). Bentham also cited the Beckler and Hill specimens but did not find these to be morphologically distinct from M. urceolatus .</p><p>The species-level taxonomy of Melichrus was not studied again until 1958. On the basis of much wider sampling and more detailed morphological observations than earlier authors, Paterson (1958) recognised four species; M. urceolatus, M. erubescens, M. procumbens and M. adpressus .</p><p>Since Paterson’s revision, two narrowly endemic species of Melichrus were collected for the first time in northern New South Wales. These were recently described as M. hirsutus J.B.Williams ex H.T.Kenn. &amp; I.Telford and M. gibberagee J.B.Williams ex H.T.Kenn. &amp; J.J.Bruhl (Kennedy et al. 2020) based on strong morphological evidence, therefore six described species are currently recognised.</p><p>Taxonomic uncertainty, nomenclatural confusion and putative new species</p><p>In this study, Paterson’s (1958) revision (i.e. the status quo taxonomy) was used as a framework for explicitly testing species limits. Table 1 provides a full list of published and phrase-named species for Melichrus, accompanied by geographic distribution and a textual description of the symbol by which these are represented in figures.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9D7287E18B30FFA8F663FBD57F61FC4A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kennedy, Helen T.;Telford, Ian R. H.;Crayn, Darren;Bruhl, Jeremy J.;Andrew, Rose L.	Kennedy, Helen T., Telford, Ian R. H., Crayn, Darren, Bruhl, Jeremy J., Andrew, Rose L. (2025): Morphological and molecular evidence for major recircumscriptions in and eight new species of Melichrus R. Br. (Ericaceae subfam. Epacridoideae) in eastern Australia. Australian Systematic Botany 38 (3): 1-37, DOI: 10.1071/SB24031, URL: https://doi.org/10.1071/sb24031
9D7287E18B31FFA8F683FC46782DFC04.text	9D7287E18B31FFA8F683FC46782DFC04.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Melichrus urceolatus	<div><p>Melichrus urceolatus and M. erubescens</p><p>Melichrus urceolatus has been maintained as a species through various treatments, albeit with differing limits. Paterson circumscribed M. urceolatus to include a vast geographical area; from Herberton, northern Queensland to Saint Arnaud, Victoria, acknowledging that ‘within this range a large variety of form is shown…’ (Paterson 1958, p. 313). Paterson (1958) provided a brief description of five groups that differed morphologically from the ‘typical condition’ and the approximate geographic range but did not attempt formal subdivision (Paterson 1958, p. 313). A great deal of this variation was noted to occur in Queensland, where three phrase-named putative species have been accepted by the APC (CHAH, accessed 4 May 2023), namely M. sp. Inglewood (A.R.Bean 1652), M. sp. Isla Gorge (P.Sharpe + 601) and M. sp. Tara (D.Halford Q2259).</p><p>Several putative species have been segregated from Melichrus urceolatus and informally phrase-named at the N.C.W. Beadle Herbarium (NE) but are not yet listed on the APC, including M. sp. Mareeba (H.T. Kennedy 92) NE Herbarium, M. sp. Galambary (H.T. Kennedy 7) NE Herbarium, M. sp. Gilgandra (H.T. Kennedy 128) NE Herbarium, M. sp. Gardens of Stone (H.T. Kennedy 46) NE Herbarium and M. sp. Salvator Rosa (M.B. Thomas 244) NE Herbarium that were identified during exploratory herbarium and field observations made in the early stages of this study.</p><p>Paterson (1958) retained the synonymy of Melichrus medius under M. urceolatus established by Bentham, explaining that no difference was observed in the protologue descriptions or subsequent collections made from the type localities. Improved access to the type specimen and other early collections allows the original definition of M. medius to be considered anew in this study.</p><p>Paterson reinstated Melichrus erubescens to species status, explaining that ‘the taxonomic differences are such as to justify specific rank, although the two species [ M. urceolatus and M. erubescens] are undoubtedly closely related’ (Paterson 1958, p. 310). As currently delimited, the boundary between M. urceolatus and M. erubescens is unclear. Melichrus sp. Gardens of Stone, M. sp. Gilgandra and M. sp. Galambary, though treated as M. urceolatus by Paterson, all share morphological affinities with M. erubescens, exemplifying the unworkable boundary between the species as currently described.</p><p>Several populations of Melichrus that are morphologically similar to both M. erubescens and M. urceolatus have been collected for the first time since Paterson’s revision. These gatherings cannot be confidently assigned to either species and have been given the phrase names M. sp. Silent Grove (H.T. Kennedy 33) NE Herbarium and M. sp. Kaputar (H.T. Kennedy 25) NE Herbarium (Table 1). A key aim of this study was to decisively clarify the boundary between M. erubescens, M. urceolatus and morphologically similar putative species M. sp. Inglewood, M. sp. Isla Gorge, M. sp. Tara, M. sp. Gardens of Stone, M. sp. Gilgandra, M. sp. Galambary, M. sp. Silent Grove and M. sp. Kaputar.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9D7287E18B31FFA8F683FC46782DFC04	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kennedy, Helen T.;Telford, Ian R. H.;Crayn, Darren;Bruhl, Jeremy J.;Andrew, Rose L.	Kennedy, Helen T., Telford, Ian R. H., Crayn, Darren, Bruhl, Jeremy J., Andrew, Rose L. (2025): Morphological and molecular evidence for major recircumscriptions in and eight new species of Melichrus R. Br. (Ericaceae subfam. Epacridoideae) in eastern Australia. Australian Systematic Botany 38 (3): 1-37, DOI: 10.1071/SB24031, URL: https://doi.org/10.1071/sb24031
9D7287E18B31FFAEF553FBB47929FC23.text	9D7287E18B31FFAEF553FBB47929FC23.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Melichrus adpressus	<div><p>Melichrus adpressus</p><p>The nomenclatural history of Melichrus adpressus is convoluted. The name M. adpressus was first applied to a collection made by Cunningham near Wellington Valley, New South Wales (De Candolle 1839). Later, Mueller listed M. adpressus as synonymous with Styphelia cunninghamii (von Mueller 1868, p. 39), which was described from specimens collected in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. In doing so, an illegitimate name was erected and applied to two morphologically and geographically disjunct entities. Paterson (1958, p. 308) stated that:</p><p>the type locality of Melichrus adpressus is Wellington Valley but specimens subsequently collected from this area do not agree with the original description, and unfortunately Cunningham’s specimens were unavailable for comparison .</p><p>There is uncertainty regarding which specimens Paterson was referring to as ‘subsequently collected’ because no specimens from the Wellington Valley were cited in the revision. Paterson chose to adopt Mueller’s concept of M. adpressus and excluded the strict application of the name in the revision. Easy access to digital images of herbarium specimens (e.g. from JSTOR Global Plants) now greatly facilitates comparison of specimens that were largely inaccessible to earlier workers. See, for example, a specimen of M. adpressus collected by A. Cunningham near Wellington Valley that</p><p>(Continued on next page) was seen by De Candolle, compared with a specimen cited by Paterson (Fig. 2). The morphological disparity between these specimens, including differences in leaf size, shape, margin texture, indumentum and density on stems, suggests that the name M. adpressus is misapplied in Paterson (1958). Herein, the name Melichrus adpressus sensu Paterson (or abbreviated to ‘s. Paterson’ in figures) indicates the use in the sense of von Mueller (1868) and Paterson (1958). When referred to in the original, strict sense of De Candolle (1839) this is denoted M. adpressus sens. str. (see Table 1).</p><p>All operational taxonomic units (OTUs) used in this study are listed in column one. Column two provides the geographic distribution and column three the symbol by which these are represented in analyses. The status quo taxonomy as published in Paterson (1958) is listed first. Geographic distributions for these names are as appearing in Paterson (1958). Followed by all OTUs segregated from M. urceolatus sensu Paterson, M. adpressus sensu Paterson and M. procumbens sensu Paterson. The last group of names listed is not represented in Paterson (1958), including the strict application of M. adpressus that was excluded from the revision and several phrase names that represent morphologically distinctive populations or entities unknown in 1958. All OTUs segregated from M. urceolatus sensu Paterson are represented by circles; segregates of M. erubescens sensu Paterson by triangles; segregates of M. adpressus sensu Paterson by squares; segregates of M. procumbens sensu Paterson by diamonds; and all OTUs not included in Paterson (1958) by inverted triangles. Herbarium codes follow the Index Herbariorum. Codes used in the geographic distributions are abbreviations of botanical districts and follow the (Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research 2018). A APC-accepted phrase names. B The plus symbol (+) is used by BRI to indicate that there are co-collectors.</p><p>Paterson (1958) noted only minor morphological variability across the range of Melichrus adpressus sensu Paterson. However, observations of herbarium and field specimens made early in this study suggested that this taxonomic consideration may neglect substantial morphological variation. We represent this variation by several phrase names. The northernmost populations of M. adpressus sensu Paterson are restricted to the Herberton area in Queensland and highly geographically disjunct from the southern populations in the state, and were designated as M. sp. Herberton (H.T. Kennedy 91) NE Herbarium. Specimens from the North Coast of New South Wales were morphologically distinctive and phrase named M. sp. Yuraygir (H.T. Kennedy 29) NE. Melichrus sp. Gurulmundi (H.T.Kennedy 69) NE Herbarium was applied to populations of M. adpressus sensu Paterson, found in southern Queensland that also share some morphological affinities with M. urceolatus . Isolated populations of Melichrus resembling M. adpressus sensu Paterson are known from slightly below the rocky outcrop at the summit of Mount Maroon, Queensland (Wahlmoorum of the First Nations’ Yuggera language), the upper slopes of Kroombit Tops National Park, Queensland and the sandy flats of Boonoo Boonoo National Park, New South Wales. The earliest collections of these populations were made in the latter half of the 20th Century, after the publication of Paterson’s (1958) revision. Each population is morphologically distinctive and to each we assigned the respective phrase names M. sp. Wahlmoorum (H.T. Kennedy 78) NE Herbarium, M. sp. Kroombit Tops (H.T. Kennedy 87) NE Herbarium and M. sp. Boonoo Boonoo (H.T. Kennedy 35) NE Herbarium for this study.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9D7287E18B31FFAEF553FBB47929FC23	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kennedy, Helen T.;Telford, Ian R. H.;Crayn, Darren;Bruhl, Jeremy J.;Andrew, Rose L.	Kennedy, Helen T., Telford, Ian R. H., Crayn, Darren, Bruhl, Jeremy J., Andrew, Rose L. (2025): Morphological and molecular evidence for major recircumscriptions in and eight new species of Melichrus R. Br. (Ericaceae subfam. Epacridoideae) in eastern Australia. Australian Systematic Botany 38 (3): 1-37, DOI: 10.1071/SB24031, URL: https://doi.org/10.1071/sb24031
9D7287E18B37FFAEF553FC6779C6F943.text	9D7287E18B37FFAEF553FC6779C6F943.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Melichrus procumbens	<div><p>Melichrus procumbens</p><p>Melichrus procumbens was the first species of Melichrus described (as M. rotatus) and the taxonomic status of this morphologically distinctive species has never been questioned (Bentham 1868; von Mueller 1868; Paterson 1958). This species has a geographically disjunct distribution and has been recorded from coastal sands at Hervey Bay south to Sydney, where the type was collected and on usually granitic soils in the New England Tableland bioregion from Stanthorpe to Wollomombi. Paterson (1958, p. 307) described the plants across the disjunct range as ‘morphologically similar’ with the exception of a population near Glen Innes that was ‘in all respects larger … than typical specimens’ and hypothesised to be an autopolyploid. This putative new species was phrase-named Melichrus sp. Torrington (H.T. Kennedy 32) NE Herbarium. Since Paterson’s (1958) revision, a morphologically allied population was collected in Colo Gorge, New South Wales as M. procumbens and is here given the phrase name M. sp. Colo Gorge (I.R. Telford 8659) NE Herbarium. Sampling across the geographic range of M. procumbens is needed to test the relationship between morphologically dissimilar and geographically disjunct populations.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9D7287E18B37FFAEF553FC6779C6F943	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kennedy, Helen T.;Telford, Ian R. H.;Crayn, Darren;Bruhl, Jeremy J.;Andrew, Rose L.	Kennedy, Helen T., Telford, Ian R. H., Crayn, Darren, Bruhl, Jeremy J., Andrew, Rose L. (2025): Morphological and molecular evidence for major recircumscriptions in and eight new species of Melichrus R. Br. (Ericaceae subfam. Epacridoideae) in eastern Australia. Australian Systematic Botany 38 (3): 1-37, DOI: 10.1071/SB24031, URL: https://doi.org/10.1071/sb24031
9D7287E18B37FFACF553F9467DACFF04.text	9D7287E18B37FFACF553F9467DACFF04.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Melichrus hirsutus	<div><p>Melichrus hirsutus and Melichrus gibberagee</p><p>Melichrus hirsutus and M. gibberagee were each collected separately for the first time several years after Paterson’s (1958) revision was published. Despite the geographic proximity in north-eastern NSW, the taxonomic status was strongly supported by distinct morphological characteristics and these were published as new species (Kennedy et al. 2020). These two species are included in this study to test their status as distinct species based on molecular evidence.</p><p>Aims and approach of the study</p><p>The species-level taxonomy for Melichrus has never been tested using either a numerical morphological approach or any form of genetic data. We use both in an integrative taxonomic approach to determine robust species boundaries in line with the unified species concept. We developed a new, comprehensive morphological dataset representing the eastern Australian Melichrus species and applied an analytical pipeline to thoroughly explore patterns of similarity in the dataset. A complementary DArTseq (Kilian et al. 2012) dataset for the genus was interrogated using various clustering, ancestry estimation and population genetics analyses to identify discontinuities in the dataset, examine population structure and therefore test boundaries of species in the study group. Within the broader aim of species delimitation we address several specific questions, namely: (1) are there six species of Melichrus in eastern Australia ( M. urceolatus, M. erubescens, M. procumbens, M. adpressus, M. hirsutus and M. gibberagee) as currently described or are there up to 19 undescribed species as indicated by the phrase names in use at the Queensland Herbarium (BRI) and N.C.W. Beadle Herbarium (NE)? (2) Is Melichrus urceolatus a natural group or has this been used as a ‘catch-all’ taxon for specimens that could not be adequately identified under the status quo taxonomic classification? (3) Where does the boundary lie between the often-confused taxa, M. urceolatus and M. erubescens? We address these and other questions of species’ limits and provide detailed recommendations for a revised taxonomy of Melichrus .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9D7287E18B37FFACF553F9467DACFF04	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kennedy, Helen T.;Telford, Ian R. H.;Crayn, Darren;Bruhl, Jeremy J.;Andrew, Rose L.	Kennedy, Helen T., Telford, Ian R. H., Crayn, Darren, Bruhl, Jeremy J., Andrew, Rose L. (2025): Morphological and molecular evidence for major recircumscriptions in and eight new species of Melichrus R. Br. (Ericaceae subfam. Epacridoideae) in eastern Australia. Australian Systematic Botany 38 (3): 1-37, DOI: 10.1071/SB24031, URL: https://doi.org/10.1071/sb24031
9D7287E18B29FF8BF533FB6979E7F863.text	9D7287E18B29FF8BF533FB6979E7F863.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Melichrus urceolatus	<div><p>Melichrus urceolatus and M. erubescens</p><p>In the genus-wide phenetic analysis, the Melichrus urceolatus segregates (see Table 1 for summary of OTUs) clustered in five separate groups, spread across the ordination space and phenogram (Fig. 3). Strikingly, a very similar pattern of variation was returned in a genus-wide PCA and SplitsTree analysis of the DArTseq dataset (Fig. 7), where the M. urceolatus segregates also clustered in five highly distinct clusters but with some variation in which OTUs grouped together. These results demonstrated that M. urceolatus has been used as a ‘catch all’ species requiring significant taxonomic restructuring.</p><p>Both the morphological and molecular analyses demonstrated that Melichrus erubescens and M. urceolatus are highly distinct from each other, despite decades of confusion regarding the boundary. The analyses also showed that some OTUs segregated from M. urceolatus, such as M. sp. Galambary and M. sp. Gardens of Stone, had more in</p><p>(a) (b)</p><p>30°S</p><p>35°S</p><p>common with M. erubescens genetically, morphologically or in some cases both. This explains why the status quo taxonomic boundary between M. urceolatus and M. erubescens has been so difficult to apply in practice.</p><p>Across all analyses, Melichrus adpressus sens. str. was supported as distinct from M. urceolatus, with which this was synonymised by Bentham; distinct from M. adpressus sensu Paterson, to which the name was misapplied by Mueller and Paterson; and distinct from M. erubescens sensu Paterson, with which many of the populations have been confused in herbarium collections. The results for M. adpressus sens. str. corroborate the recognition as a unique species, as originally proposed by Cunningham and formalised by De Candolle in 1839. As such, the name M. adpressus should be restored to the original application, sensu De Candolle (1839).</p><p>On the balance of evidence, we recommend that the OTUs Melichrus sp. Galambary and M. sp. Kaputar be synonymised with M. adpressus sens. str. Morphological and molecular evidence indicated a close relationship between M. sp. Galambary and M. adpressus sens. str. across all analyses. There was some indication of an approximately north-south disjunction in morphology and genetics among the populations examined of M. sp. Galambary. This observation requires targeted sampling and further testing before accepting this phrase name as a separate species. Melichrus sp. Kaputar, known only from a single, isolated outcrop on Mount Kaputar, New South Wales is morphologically consistent with M. adpressus sens. str. Molecular analyses on the other hand, suggested that the OTU is related to a lineage containing M. adpressus sens. str. but is genetically divergent. This was particularly evident in</p><p>–0.75 –0.50 –0.25 0.00 0.25 M. procumbens</p><p>M. sp. Torrington</p><p>M. medius</p><p>M. urceolatus</p><p>M. sp. Silent Grove M. sp. Tara</p><p>M. sp. Isla Gorge</p><p>M. sp. Mareeba Populations</p><p>M. sp. sp. Galambary</p><p>M. sp. Gilgandra M. erubescens</p><p>M. sp. Kaputar M. sp. Gardens of Stone</p><p>M. adpressus sens. str.</p><p>M. sp. Yuraygir</p><p>M. sp. Boonoo Boonoo M. adpressus s. Paterson</p><p>M. sp. Gurulmundi</p><p>M. sp. Kroombit Tops M. sp. Herberton</p><p>M. hirsutus M. gibberagee</p><p>He Ho Fis the PCA and SplitsTree analysis. However, the results of the STRUCTURE analysis were more equivocal and the conStruct analysis suggested that this was only minimally differentiated from M. adpressus sens. str. Mount Kaputar is a known area of endemism (New South Wales Department of Planning, Industry and Environment 2021) the uniqueness of M. sp. Kaputar contributes to the conservation value of the area. However, in the absence of diagnostic characters to distinguish M. sp. Kaputar reliably from M. adpressus sens. str., we recommend that this be synonymised.</p><p>Melichrus sp. Gilgandra is strongly morphologically distinct from M. adpressus sens. str. but only weakly genetically diverged. This putative species with urceolate flowers and small, broad, often recurved leaves had more in common in the phenetic analyses with M. sp. Inglewood and M. urceolatus than M. adpressus sens. str. (Fig. 4). However M. sp. Gilgandra does share some morphological characters, such as fruit texture and calyx length, with M. adpressus sens. str. (Table 4c). The combination of strongly glaucous, blue-coloured leaves, pink petiole margins, urceolate flowers and wrinkly fruit epidermis make this putative species highly recognisable. The strong morphological but weak genetic discontinuity between M. sp. Gilgandra and M. adpressus sens. str. could indicate that M. sp. Gilgandra has only relatively recently diverged from a lineage containing M. adpressus sens. str. and is yet to accumulate many differences in allele frequency through genetic drift. The area around Gilgandra in New South Wales where this putative entity occurs is at the more arid end of the environmental envelope in which M. adpressus sens. str. occurs, therefore some of the morphological differences seen in M. sp. Gilgandra, such as smaller, glaucous leaves could be evidence of local selective adaptation (Solbrig 1994). These may also represent a plastic response to the environmental conditions (Carvajal et al. 2017). Ideally, this would be directly tested through greenhouse experiments (see Collins et al. 2022) but as species of Melichrus are challenging to cultivate from seed and cuttings, this has not been feasible.</p><p>As explained in the Introduction, to satisfy requirements for species status under the unified species concept, evidence should indicate that M. sp. Gilgandra is an independently evolving metapopulation lineage (de Queiroz 2007), identifiable by corresponding discontinuities in a variety of data sources. The evidence from morphological analyses</p><p>Systematic Botany 38 (2025) SB24031 (Continued on next page)</p><p>31 Systematic Botany 38 (2025) SB24031 supports M. sp. Gilgandra as a distinct species but the molecular data suggests that this is a morphologically distinct population of M. adpressus sens. str. Collections of new populations and data or greenhouse experiments may tell us more about the evolutionary trajectory of M. sp. Gilgandra. Until further evidence becomes available, we recommend that this be described as a subspecies of M. adpressus sens. str. Recognition as a subspecies will allow formal description of the unique morphology of this OTU. This is important for identification purposes and communicating the diversity value to conservationists.</p><p>Morphological: Y, distinctive and diagnosable. Molecular: Y, evidence that the entity is a separately evolving lineage. Corresponding discontinuities: Y, discontinuities seen in morphological analyses agree with those seen in the molecular analyses.</p><p>32</p><p>A specimen of Melichrus sp. Gardens of Stone collected by Erwin Gauba near ‘Pigeon House Mountains’ (CANB 003865) was listed in Paterson (1958) under M. urceolatus but in both the molecular and morphological analyses all samples of M. sp. Gardens of Stone clustered closer to M. erubescens . More detailed analyses showed this OTU to be similar to, but diagnosable both morphologically and genetically as distinct from M. erubescens . We therefore recommend that this be described as a new species.</p><p>Melichrus sp. Silent Grove clustered near to, but distinct from M. erubescens in the morphological analyses. However, PCA and SplitsTree genetic analysis demonstrated that M. sp. Silent Grove is more genetically similar to, yet distinct from, M. urceolatus . Melichrus sp. Silent Grove does share some morphological traits with M. urceolatus, particularly the surface texture of the dried fruits but is easily distinguished by several characters, especially the adpressed and straight young leaves ( v. young leaves erect to strongly spreading, often recurved) and the absence of a white margin on leaves ( v. leaves with a white margin ~ 1 mm wide). Given the distinctiveness of M. sp. Silent Grove across analyses, we recommend recognising this narrow range endemic as a new species. The results of the STRUCTURE analysis support this recommendation but raise some questions regarding the evolutionary history of this new species. In the STRUCTURE analysis, M. sp. Silent Grove was represented almost entirely by a single ancestral population. This ancestral population was shared in part by all other geographically proximal Melichrus species, including M. sp. Torrington, M. urceolatus and M. sp. Boonoo Boonoo. There are plausible mechanistic explanations for such a pattern of admixture including that northern New South Wales is an evolutionary centre of diversity for this genus and that this layer represents an old, widely shared ancestral population. This pattern could also be an artefact of the analysis, as M. sp. Silent Grove was only represented in analyses by the single known population and thus warrants further testing.</p><p>Melichrus sp. Inglewood grouped with M. urceolatus in all genetic analyses. In morphological analyses, this clustered close to M. urceolatus but was separated by the particularly small leaves. No further characters were found to reliably segregate this putative species from all M. urceolatus populations. We recommend this be treated as a synonym of M. urceolatus .</p><p>A northern cluster was detected among the Melichrus urceolatus samples across all analyses. conStruct analysis indicated that the discontinuity observed in the STRUCTURE results was likely substantially independent of the influence of isolation by distance. Despite the strong genetic discontinuity between the northern cluster and remaining M. urceolatus samples, there was no morphological evidence to support species delimitation. Similarly, STRUCTURE results indicated substantial divergence and interesting patterns of admixture between populations of M. medius and some M. urceolatus . This genetic divergence was not matched by a corresponding discontinuity in morphological characteristics sufficient to recommend description as a separate species. The continued synonymy of M. medius with M. urceolatus is recommended.</p><p>Molecular data decisively placed Melichrus sp. Tara as conspecific with M. sp. Isla Gorge, and together, both were highly disjunct from M. urceolatus, despite being previously included under a broader concept of this species by Paterson (1958). Morphological analyses also strongly supported M. sp. Isla Gorge plus M. sp. Tara as distinct from M. urceolatus and we recommend that the two be described as a single new species.</p><p>Molecular and morphological results supported Melichrus sp. Mareeba as a species distinct from M. urceolatus . Furthermore, molecular results indicated that M. sp. Mareeba may have evolved from a hybrid or allopolyploid ancestor(s), where the closest living relatives of the ancestral parental lineages are M. sp. Isla Gorge plus M. sp. Tara and M. sp. Herberton plus M. sp. Kroombit Tops. This result is most strikingly apparent in the admixture pattern observed in the SplitsTree and STRUCTURE analyses (Figs. 7, 11). The elevated HE and HO of these populations, and the extremely negative FIS are more consistent with an allopolyploid or possibly a clonal F1 diploid hybrid (Fig. 13). A sexual diploid hybrid can likely be ruled out, as a single generation of outcrossing would be expected to bring FIS much closer to zero, though chromosome counts are needed to understand the possible involvement of polyploidy. Morphological phenetic analyses weakly separated M. sp. Mareeba from M. sp. Isla Gorge and M. sp. Tara samples clustered close to M. sp. Mareeba. Melichrus sp. Mareeba shares some morphological characters with M. sp. Herberton, most notably the presence of a wide white leaf margin. Several characters for the decisive diagnosis of M. sp. Mareeba as distinct from M. sp. Isla Gorge plus M. sp. Tara and M. sp. Herberton were identified (Table 4 b). On the basis of this evidence, we recommend that M. sp. Mareeba be described as a new species. Results of unpublished phylogenetic analyses (Kennedy et al. unpublished manuscript) that interrogate the putative hybrid ancestry of M. sp. Mareeba shed more light on this taxon and bolster evidence supporting the delimitation (see Nauheimer et al. 2021).</p><p>The final segregate from Melichrus urceolatus was M. sp. Salvator Rosa but this was unable to be located in the field and thus excluded from the analyses, therefore the status of this segregate remains unresolved.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9D7287E18B29FF8BF533FB6979E7F863	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kennedy, Helen T.;Telford, Ian R. H.;Crayn, Darren;Bruhl, Jeremy J.;Andrew, Rose L.	Kennedy, Helen T., Telford, Ian R. H., Crayn, Darren, Bruhl, Jeremy J., Andrew, Rose L. (2025): Morphological and molecular evidence for major recircumscriptions in and eight new species of Melichrus R. Br. (Ericaceae subfam. Epacridoideae) in eastern Australia. Australian Systematic Botany 38 (3): 1-37, DOI: 10.1071/SB24031, URL: https://doi.org/10.1071/sb24031
9D7287E18B13FF8AF533FD2D7941FBCB.text	9D7287E18B13FF8AF533FD2D7941FBCB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Melichrus hirsutus	<div><p>Melichrus hirsutus and Melichrus gibberagee</p><p>Melichrus hirsutus and M. gibberagee were collected for the first time several years after Paterson’s revision was published. The species were validly published in 2020 on the basis of qualitative morphology. The species status of both entities was strongly supported by both the morphological and genetic analyses. Similarities in the molecular analyses suggest the two species may be more closely related than would be expected based on strong morphological dissimilarity. Phylogenetic analyses should interrogate the relationship further.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9D7287E18B13FF8AF533FD2D7941FBCB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kennedy, Helen T.;Telford, Ian R. H.;Crayn, Darren;Bruhl, Jeremy J.;Andrew, Rose L.	Kennedy, Helen T., Telford, Ian R. H., Crayn, Darren, Bruhl, Jeremy J., Andrew, Rose L. (2025): Morphological and molecular evidence for major recircumscriptions in and eight new species of Melichrus R. Br. (Ericaceae subfam. Epacridoideae) in eastern Australia. Australian Systematic Botany 38 (3): 1-37, DOI: 10.1071/SB24031, URL: https://doi.org/10.1071/sb24031
9D7287E18B13FF8AF663F9FA78D4FD63.text	9D7287E18B13FF8AF663F9FA78D4FD63.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Melichrus procumbens	<div><p>Melichrus procumbens</p><p>We found that most evidence supported no change to the status quo taxonomy for Melichrus procumbens . The proportions of M. sp. Torrington plants were generally large, as noted by Paterson (1958) but this variation fell within the observed range for M. procumbens and so is not consistent with Paterson’s hypothesis that M. sp. Torrington is an autopolyploid. However, the two populations of M. sp. Torrington included in the molecular analyses did cluster together, separate from nearby M. procumbens samples. This pattern is consistent with M. sp. Torrington as an autopolyploid or a seperately evolving metapopulation but a chromosomal study is required for confirmation. As the discontinuity in the genetic dataset is not accompanied by a corresponding morphological discontinuity, we recommend that M. sp. Torrington be considered a synonym of M. procumbens .</p><p>Since Paterson’s revision, a morphologically distinctive taxon similar to Melichrus procumbens was collected in Colo Gorge, New South Wales and phrase-named M. sp. Colo Gorge (I.R.Telford 8659) NE Herbarium. This OTU could not be located in the field as efforts were impeded in part by bushfires and drought in the area. As such, this is excluded from the taxonomic revision pending new collections.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9D7287E18B13FF8AF663F9FA78D4FD63	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Kennedy, Helen T.;Telford, Ian R. H.;Crayn, Darren;Bruhl, Jeremy J.;Andrew, Rose L.	Kennedy, Helen T., Telford, Ian R. H., Crayn, Darren, Bruhl, Jeremy J., Andrew, Rose L. (2025): Morphological and molecular evidence for major recircumscriptions in and eight new species of Melichrus R. Br. (Ericaceae subfam. Epacridoideae) in eastern Australia. Australian Systematic Botany 38 (3): 1-37, DOI: 10.1071/SB24031, URL: https://doi.org/10.1071/sb24031
