Themeda triandra Forssk.

Veldkamp, J. F., 2016, A revision of Themeda (Gramineae) in Malesia with a new species from Laos, Blumea 61 (1), pp. 29-40 : 35

7. Themeda triandra Forssk.

Themeda triandra Forssk.(1775) 178. — Themeda polygama J.F.Gmel.(1791) 149, nom.superfl. — Anthistiria forskalii Kunth (1829) 162 (‘ foskålii ’), nom. superfl. — [ Themeda arguens (L.) Hack. subvar. triandra (Forssk.) Roberty (1960) 92, nom.inval.]. — Type: Forsskåhl s.n. (holo C, not found: Hepper & Friis 1994: 280). — Neotype: to be designated.

Anthistiria imberbis Retz.(1783) 11. — [ Anthistiria ciliata L.f. var . β Nees (1831) 285, no comb. made]. — Anthesteria imberbis (Retz.) Retz. ex Spreng. 1824 ;ex Trin.(1832) 321,isonym. — Anthistiria vulgaris Hack.var. imberbis (Retz.) Hack. (1888) 102. — Themeda forskalii Hack. var. imberbis Hack. ( & subvar. typica Hack. , nom. inval.) (1889) 661. — Themeda imberbis (Retz.) T. Cooke (1908) 993. — Themeda triandra Forssk. var. imberbis (Retz.) Hack. (1908) 63; Thell. (1912) 74; A. Camus (1920a) 270; (1922) 360,isonyms [incl. subvar. typica (Hack.) A.Camus ,nom. inval.].— [ Themeda arguens (L.) Hack. var. imberbis (Retz.) Roberty (1954) 411, comb. inval.: no basion. — Themeda arguens (L.) Hack. subvar. imberbis (Retz.) Roberty (1960) 91, nom. inval.]. — Type: A. Sparrman s.n. via Acharius s.n. in Herb. Retz. (holo LD).

Anthistiria australis R.Br. (1810) 200. — Anthesteria australis (R.Br.) R.Br. ex Spreng. (1824) 291; ex Trin.(1832) 322,isonym. — Themeda australis (R.Br.) Stapf (1919) 420. — Lectotype: R. Brown 6194 (BM, photo in K, BRI; iso K, photo in BRI; M), designated here.

Anthistiria punctata Hochst. ex A.Rich. (1850) 448. — Themeda triandra Forssk.var. punctata (Hochst. ex A.Rich.) Stapf (1919) 419. — Lectotype: Schimper I, 73 (P; iso K, L), designated by Chase & Niles (1962: 397).

[ Anthistiria ciliata L.f. var . β Nees (1850) 99, nomen, ‘ subglabra ’ is the description]. — Anthistiria depauperata Andersson (1856) 243. — Themeda forskalii Hack. subvar. depauperata (Andersson) Hack. (1889) 660. — Lectotype: Cuming 1673 [‘ 1873 ’ is obviously erroneous, as this is Uraria lagopodioides (L.) Desv.ex DC., Leguminosae ] (CGE,K, P, W).(Nees’ var. β is not necessarily the same as that cited sub Anthistiria imberbis (sub Themeda australis )),here designated,location of (holo) lectotype unknown.

Anthistiria subglabra Buse ( Feb.1854) 23; ( Aug. 1854) 363. — Type: Horner s.n. (holo L sh. 908.83-688).

Apluda barbata Llanos (1858) 497; (1880) 99. — Type: not extant.

Anthistiria vulgaris Hack. (1887) 29, t. 20, nom. inval., auct. non accepit! — Themeda forskalii Hack.(1887) 126 ( ‘ Forskålii ’); (1889) 659,nom. superfl. (incl. p. 660, var. vulgaris Hack. , nom.inval.],non Anthistiria forskalii Kunth (1829) . — Anthistiria imberbis Retz. var. vulgaris Hack. ex Hook.f. (1896) 212, valid! — [ Themeda triandra Forssk. var. vulgaris (Hack.) Domin (1915) 278; A. Camus (1920a) 270, isonym, nom. inval.]. — Themeda arguens (L.) Hack. subvar. vulgaris (Hack.) Roberty (1960) 92, nom. inval.]. — Type: not indicated: “ A. ciliata der Autoren , nicht L. fil .”

Anthistiria barbata auct. non Desf.

Anthistiria ciliata auct., non L.f.

Themeda quadrivalvis (L.) Kuntze

Plants perennial. Culms 0.3–2 m long, solitary or tufted. Nodes glabrous. Ligule 0.5–1.5 mm long, margin glabrous. Leaves 8–65 cm by 1.5–4(–10) mm wide. Uppermost spatheoles glabrous or with some bulbous based bristles. Peduncle 1–5 mm long, extremely short, glabrous or apically white setose. Capitule long-persistent. Involucral spikelets conspicuous, pairs inserted at the same level, sterile or male; lower glumes lanceolate, 7–14(–20) by 1–2 mm wide, acuminate, charta- ceous, (9–)11-nerved, glabrous or densely white hirsute; upper glumes 3-nerved. Fertile spikelets 1, (5–) 7–8 mm long (incl. callus), callus 0.7–3 mm long, hairs brown, 3–4.5 mm long; lower glumes castaneous, apex truncate, distally hispidulous. Awn well-developed, perfect, 30–60 mm long, column 16–30 mm long (i.s.), straight or geniculate, hairs white (i.s.). Anthers 2–3(–5.25) mm long, purple i.s. or yellow i.s. Pedicel glabrous. Pedicelled spikelets 0–2, sterile or male, 6–9(–11) mm long. Lower glumes acuminate to aristate, glabrous or rarely distally with some bulbous based bristles. 2n = usually 20, but many other numbers have been counted, up to 110.

Distribution — Widespread, S Africa to Australia (incl. Tas- mania); Thailand (Northern: Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Lampang; Northeastern: Nakhon Phanom; Southwestern: Kanchanaburi, Rachaburi; Central: Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya, Saraburi); Malesia: Sumatra (W Coast: Padanglawas), Java (W: only around Cikadal, here and there in Central and East), Madura, Lesser Sunda Isl. ( Flores, Sumba, Timor, Wetar), Celebes (Manado, Makassar), Philippines ( Batanes Isl., Busuanga Isl., Golo Isl., Luzon, Mindanao, Mindoro, Semirara Isl.), Moluccas (Buru), New Guinea (throughout, fide Henty 1969, but very few specimens seen, e.g. Morobe Prov.).

Habitat — Open grassy areas, roadsides, e.g. with Imperata , shrubby jungle, in deciduous dipterocarp-oak forest, Eucalypt and Casuarina savannahs, often on less fertile soil with a strong dry monsoon, locally dominant, fire resistant, 0–2200 m altitude.

Collector’s notes — Densely tufted, stramineous, reddish brown.Culms erect,yellowish-green or -brown,pale purple,waxy underneath the nodes. Leaves glaucous or dull green above, pale green below. Inflorescences nodding. Spathas glaucous, often with purple base. ‘Flowers’ brown, reddish. Involucral spikelets glaucous, pale green, apex sometimes purplish.Awns maroon, glossy black.

Uses — In Java only when young regarded as a moderate fodder, yet esteemed in Australia and South Africa. Grain edible. Not very suitable for paper making. Because of the various colours of the leaves, some cultivars are used as ornamentals, from where they may escape.

Vernacular names — Kangaroo grass, Red oat grass, Rooi- gras.

Notes — Hackel created an impressive confusion by the use of the epithet ‘ forskalii ’ with 10 varieties and 7 subvarieties. Camus (1920a) recognised even 13 and 7, respectively. These are mainly based on pubescence. The involucral spikelets may bear bulbous based bristles in the upper part, but a special status for the bristled ( ‘ vulgaris ’) and non-bristled ( ‘ imberbis ’) forms does not seem warranted (‘idle’, Bor 1960: 254; ‘of little value’, Clayton & Renvoize 1982: 831) as both seem to occur over the whole range.

The pedicelled spikelets are often absent, even in the same specimen. Clayton & Renvoize (1982) twice depict only a single pedicelled spikelet. This I have never seen.