Subject: Woolemi Pines

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 96 03:05:16 GMT

Could someone please direct me to the most up-to-date sources and
publications (on-line, too) pertaining to the classification and
current research regarding Woolemi Araucaria?  I am preparing a 
discussion with the Woolemi discovery being the highlight.  I have scoured the 
Australian www sources and haven't been able to find anything more recent than 
Nov. '95.  In particular, I need to know what the official name given to the 
trees is and what definitive genetic studies have been performed.

Thanks.

For the curious, here are some interesting starting points pertaining to the 
Woolemi discovery:

http://www.rbgsyd.gov.au/RBG/News/woll.html

http://kaos.erin.gov.au:80/life/end_vuln/plants/liv_fossil.html

JF

---

From: Jim A <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:42:42 +0100

In article <51frn3$s13@news>, [email-masked] writes
>http://kaos.erin.gov.au:80/life/end_vuln/plants/liv_fossil.html
________________________________________________________________________
I found the same problem earlier this year.

Try contacting Ken Hill at the Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney.

It might be a while before you get a reply, I gather he is very busy,
but a few weeks ago he sent me some recent information that was very
useful.

[email-masked]

-- 
With Best Regards
Jim A.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 17:03:02 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>>http://kaos.erin.gov.au:80/life/end_vuln/plants/liv_fossil.html

I've sent him an email.  Nothing.  I take it he's probably out tramping most of 
the time, which is to be expected.

Jim, if you could send me that "recent information", I'd greatly appreciate it 
as time is of the essence.   

BTW, I was informed by the Systematics Laboratory at the Univ. of Melbourne that 
the only published work on Wollemia was in Telopea, which I don't have access 
to. (Jones, W.G., Hill, K.D. & Allen, J.M. 1996. Wollemia nobilis, a new living
Australian genus and species in the Araucariaceae. Telopea, 6(2-3):
173-176.)  Apparently, they concluded it was not the "living fossil" they had 
thought but still a rare, new genus, nonetheless.  Any further light on the 
subject would GREATLY apprec.

Thanks.

JF

---

From: Jim A <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:42:42 +0100

[email-masked]

-- 
With Best Regards
Jim A.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 17:03:02 GMT

Thanks.

JF