There is no way to tell from pictures on the Internet what a particular piece of wood might be. I could show you Madagascar rosewood and tell you it was Brazilian, and you'd believe me. Hell, I'd believe me with some of that stuff. I defy you to tell Macassar ebony from Malaysian blackwood. And these examples are with wood in hand...not some photo on the Internet.
And Dirk is absolutely right. Common names mean absolutely nothing. Tasmanian Oak is the same down there as Mountain Ash, and that's the same as Swamp gum...and in fact it describes three of the Eucalypts down under, the most impressive being Eucalyptus regnans. Aussie "myrtle" has absolutely nothing to do with our West Coast myrtle which comes from the Bay laurel tree. The term "blackwood" is applied to acacias, ebonies, and rosewoods.
Go figure.
To find out for sure, you'll need a wood sample that can be messed with, a good sized chunk of the bark of the tree, and leaf samples. Oh, and an expert on tropical hardwoods. You could go with a DNA sample, but that might be pricey.
Most of us pro luthiers can come close to IDing many of the woods, but the overlaps are so broad that we have to trust our own suppliers. I defy anyone to tell the mahogany in my J-45 replicas as being where it's from. Honduras? Belize? Brazil? Africa? Cuba? Hispaniola? I know, but few others would. And there is a lot of Tassie blackwood that I could not possibly tell from Hawaiian koa in a photo...maybe in the hand, but still...
Does it matter? Is it a wonderful instrument? Does it suck? Is that a matter of the wood or the craft?
Don't ascribe magical properties to the Unobtanium tree.