Themeda arguens

Veldkamp, J. F., 2016, A revision of Themeda (Gramineae) in Malesia with a new species from Laos, Blumea 61 (1), pp. 29-40 : 32

1. Themeda arguens (L.) Hack.

Themeda arguens (L.) Hack.(1889) 657. — [ Gramen arguens or Tagalnana Rumph.(1750) 15, t. 6, f. 1, nom.inval.]. — Stipa arguens L. (1762) 117. — Anthistiria arguens (L.) Willd. (1806) 901. — Anthistiria ciliata Naezén var. major Thwaites (1864) 366,pro comb. — Themeda forskalii Hack. var. major (Thwaites) Hack.(1889) 662,pro comb.,non Anthistiria (Themeda) forskalii Kunth (‘Hack.’) var. major Duthie (1888) . — Anthistiria imberbis Retz. var. major (Thwaites) Hook.f. (1896) 213. — Themeda triandra Forssk. var. major (Thwaites) Domin (1915) 279. — [ Themeda arguens (L.) Hack. var. genuina A. Camus (1920a) 267, nom. inval.]. — Lectotype: Burman in Herb. Linn. 94.10 (LINN, IDC microfiche), indirectly designated by Merrill (1917: 89), more directly by Henrard (1941: 522), and specifically by Jarvis (2007: 875).

Anthistiria frondosa R.Br. (1810) 200. — Anthesteria frondosa (R.Br.) R.Br.ex Spreng.(1824) 291. — Themeda frondosa (R.Br.) Merr. (1917) 89. — Lectotype: R. Brown 6195 (BM, photo K, BRI; iso K), designated here.

Aristaria barbata Jungh. (1840) 297. — Type: Not resolved, “per totam insulam ( Java) locis apricis siccis vulgare, a mare usque ad 2000’. Nomen: rambut kassan, djukut djurin.” (not found in L).

Anthistiria ciliata Naezén var. glabrescens Buse ( Feb. 1854) 23; ( Aug. 1854) 363. — Type: Junghuhn s.n. ‘ montem Madinang’ (holo L sh. 903.342-232).

Anthistiria pilifera Steud. (( June 1854 a) 58, nomen) ( July 1854 b) 400. — Lectotype: Zollinger 373 (P; iso G, L sh. 903.342-223), designated here.

Anthistiria junghuhniana Nees var. altior Andersson (1856) 233. — Type: Junghuhn s.n. ‘ In rupibus montis Gunong Mandjesinang’ (= Mandjinnang) (iso L sh. 903.342-234).

Anthistiria junghuhniana Nees var. minor Andersson (1856) 233. — Type: Junghuhn s.n. ‘ Ad Tjibogo ’ (iso L sh. 903.342-224, -227, -229, -233).

Themeda arguens (L.) Hack. var. balinensis Jansen (1952) 479. — Type: Van Steenis 7763a (holo BO1901668).

Andropogon tropicus auct. non Spreng.

Anthesteria arundinacea auct. non Hassk.

Anthistiria arundinacea auct. non Roxb.

Themeda caudata auct. non A.Camus.

Themeda ciliata auct. non Naezén.

Etymology. ‘ arguens ’ (‘arguo’, Lat.), ‘reproaching’. Rumphius wrote: “Its use in medicine is up to now unknown, although with the Ternatans there is a childish but common use. When one wants to accuse or reproach somebody else, especially the lovers, or the woman her man, or the man his woman, that one because of the other must suffer some grievance,sorrow, or burden, then they send him a little present wrapped in the spiny spikes of this growth, wanting to let the other know through the name of this herb, that they must suffer some sorrow because of his sake, when they want to make clear this meaning: I must through your will suffer sorrow, then he adds the herb Gratiola or Daun tsjint a ( Phyllanthus niruri L.), which with its sad face in the evening means sorrow (the leaves show profound nyctinasty), and add this together with the spikes, which they then send to each other”.

Plants annual to perennial. Culms 0.35–2 m long, with a creep- ing rhizome to tufted. Nodes glabrous. Ligule 1–2 mm long, margin glabrous. Leaves 5–45 cm by 3.5–6 mm. Uppermost spatheoles glabrous or white hairy. Peduncle 0.5–2 mm long, extremely short, white hairy. Involucre persistent, involucral spikelets inconspicuous, small, hidden among the spatheoles, pairs inserted at the same level, sterile, lanceolate, 5–9.5 by 0.3–0.5(–1) mm, membranous, 5–7-nerved, glabrous. Fertile spikelets 1, 7–10 mm long (incl. callus), callus 0.8–2 mm long, pilose, hairs brown, 4.5–5 mm long. Lower glumes castaneous, apex truncate, surface distally hispidulous. Awn perfect, 35–120 mm long, column 25–65 mm long (i.s.), geniculate, hairs rufous (i.s.). Anthers 1.5–3 mm long, purple i.s. Pedicel glabrous. Pedicelled spikelets 0–2, 6–9 mm long. Glume apex acuminate to aristate, glabrous (v.v.). 2n = 20.

Distribution — Andamans to N Vietnam and Australia (W Austr., N Terr., Queensland), Thailand (Eastern: Nakhon Ratchasima; Southwestern: Prachuap Khiri Khan, Rachaburi; Southeastern: Chonburi; Peninsular: Trang). Malesia: Mal. Penins. ( Johor, Kedah, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Penang, Perak, Selangor), Singapore, Sumatra ( Aceh, E-, W Coast), Bangka, Natuna Isl., Java (widespread), Bawean Isl., Madura, Kangean Arch., Lesser Sunda Isl. ( Bali, Flores, Komodo, Sumba, Sumbawa, Timor),Anambas Isl., Borneo (W Kalimantan, Pontianak, Sabah), Celebes (Makassar, Manado, Palu), Talaud Isl., Philippines (Luzon, Mindanao, Mindoro), Moluccas ( Ambon, Ceram, Ternate), New Guinea (widespread). Introduced elsewhere, e.g. Cuba, Fiji, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, USA ( Maryland, Virginia).

Habitat — Very common and widespread weed of sunny, dry roadsides, ruderal places, grassy areas, Tectona - and savannah forest, soil usually less fertile, in open areas often in huge numbers and after withering giving the field a characteristic brown to red glow. 0–1550 m altitude.

Vernacular name — Christmas grass, Lesser tasselgrass, Rumput merak.

Uses — Fodder of less than moderate quality. Young shoots eaten as a sweet-tasting vegetable, also against fever. Decoc- tion of roots as a tonic, blood cleanser, restorer of virility. Leaves used against lumbago, rheumatism. Culms used for bird cages and traps. Inflorescences in dry bouquets. When put in clothing will creep and tickle. See also Etymology.

Collector’s notes — Stems solitary to clumped, curved, ascending,purple red. Leaves pale to midgreen. Spatheoles green, often purplish at base. ‘Flowers’ green, brownish green, pale yellow. Fertile lemma with short brown hairs and longer brown hairs tufted at base. Awns purple, black.

Notes — There is some argument about the lectotypification of Stipa arguens L. The Linnaean collection (not named, but clearly LINN 94.10) was said by Munro (1862) to be Anthistiria ciliata , i.e. T. quadrivalvis , which was subsequently accepted by Merrill (1917) and Henrard (1941). However, examination by Savage & Hubbard (in litt. to Jansen) and Cope (2000: 246) have shown that it is T. arguens . Merrill (1917: 89) wrote “The Linnean description was manifestly based on the specimen before him [ Herb. Linn. 94.10], not on the Rumphian illustration; and, accordingly, the name should go with the plant he [Linnaeus] described”, which seems like an implicit lectotypification. Henrard (1941) was more direct: “this type”, and thus may be regarded to have designated it as the lectotype. Others have selected the reference to the Rumphius plate ( Backer 1928: 110).

In S there is an Osbeck specimen without provenance, labelled ‘ Anthistiria ’ (and ‘ A. junghuhnianae ’). This may have been seen by Linnaeus and Naezén, and the Linnaean specimen might even be a duplicate, but there is no proof of this.

Themeda arguens var. balinensis would differ by the folded leaf blades, sheaths glabrous but for the pubescent nodes and long-ciliate collar, short panicle with 1–2 few-spikeled clusters, glabrous to sparsely pilose spathes and glumes.