mel turner schreef
As so it will probably stay [being traditionally a member of Acacia
subgenus Acacia, it's thus part of a group that will remain "true
Acacias" by definition, i.e., the group containing the type species of
the genus]. If anything is to stay a member of the genus Acacia, it
will be they.

***
No
* * *

I never heard of it having phyllodes,

Nor should it have them. Phyllodes are characteristic of just one
particular major group of "no-longer-Acacias". Interestingly, DNA
phylogenies reportedly show that some Australian species with only
bipinnate leaves, not phyllodes, do belong within the phyllode-bearing
group. Of course, the phyllode-bearing species also still have
bipinnate leaves as seedlings and juveniles, so this apparent reversal
to the ancestral condition may be less surprising than it might seem
at first.

***
Yes
* * *

so where is it going to live? It comes from Florida, Texas, Mexico, and
I think the Caribbean.

And it reportedly has its closest relative in A. nilotica of Africa.

cheers