OK, so I know on Bonsaeen's 'Natural Native' comp entry there was a bit of speculation about whether or not the tree concerned was in fact Melaleuca Lanceolata or something else. Rather than continue to hijack his comp entry thread I thought I would start a new thread because, like I was saying, I had also picked up stock (from a different place), as had Pat3222 and some of ours looked similar to what Bonsaeen had posted, and some different!! I said I would post pics of mine - so here they are...
IMG_3692B.jpg
IMG_3693B.jpg
IMG_3694B.jpg
IMG_3695B.jpg
IMG_3696B.jpg
IMG_3697B.jpg
So, what does all this mean?? ... I have no idea! It's just interesting to me that there can be such a marked visual difference. I did have a look at the links posted by treeman in the other thread and I see how there could be doubt over them being Moonah, but the second link does say "Leaves alternate, linear to narrowly lanceolate or narrowly oblanceolate, 5–15 mm long, 1–3 mm wide, tip acute, often bent downwards..." so maybe these plants are just at either end of the natural variation spectrum?? (I have reposted the links below for those interested)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_ ... morphology
https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/t ... 6782e2e3bb
I guess I'll just grow on for a bit and see what happens ... in the end I thought they had good attributes for bonsai when I saw them : small leaf size, reasonably bendy trunks and lots of budding, so whatever they are there is a chance they'll end up as an entry in the Natural Native comp, they're definitely native!! (

)

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.