Machaerina teretifolia
Content
Description
Leaves few, the basal ones shorter than to about as long as the stems, erect, subterete or somewhat angular towards the apex, smooth, pungent, internally with continuous pith, the 1-2 cauline ones with a short blade.
Stamens 3;
Panicle erect, oblong, narrow, dense, much branched, 5-15 cm long.
Distribution
Angi Lakes present, Arfak Mts present, Asia-Tropical, Australasia: Queensland (Queensland present), E. Australia present, N.S. Wales present, New Zealand present, W. New Guinea present
E. Australia (Queensland, N.S. Wales), New Zealand, in Malesia: W. New Guinea: Arfak Mts (Angi Lakes).
Notes
The habit of M. teretifolia much resembles that of M. rubiginosa, but in the former the panicle is denser and the glumes are usually shortly awned. With certainty the two can only be distinguished by the quite different nuts.
M. teretifolia is also very similar to and in herbaria often confused with Lepidosperma chinense. Even when in flower.M. teretifolia can easily be recognized by the stem-leaves and the continuous pith of the basal leaves. In Lepidosperma chinense there are no stem-leaves and the pith of the basal leaves is divided into numerous transverse septa. In the fruiting state the two can also be distinguished by the nuts (smooth in Lepidosperma chinense with 6 thick scales attached to the base, strongly rugose in M. teretifolia, without hypogynous scales).
The specimens cited by RENDLE under his Cladium arfakense partly belong to Lepidosperma chinense, partly to M. teretifolia. The very inaccurate de- scription is probably a mixture of Lepidosperma and Machaerina characters. The nut is not described, although there are many ripe ones in the Machaerina specimens.
DOMIN and KÜKENTHAL united M. teretifolia with the closely related M. tetragona (LABILL.) KOYAMA from S. Australia and Tasmania. The latter species is mainly characterized by the prominently 4-angled stems and leaves. In the wider circumscription the correct name is M. tetragona, and in Cladium: C. tetragonum (LABILL.) BLACK, not C. teretifolium as was accepted by both DOMIN and KÜKENTHAL.
M. teretifolia is also very similar to and in herbaria often confused with Lepidosperma chinense. Even when in flower.M. teretifolia can easily be recognized by the stem-leaves and the continuous pith of the basal leaves. In Lepidosperma chinense there are no stem-leaves and the pith of the basal leaves is divided into numerous transverse septa. In the fruiting state the two can also be distinguished by the nuts (smooth in Lepidosperma chinense with 6 thick scales attached to the base, strongly rugose in M. teretifolia, without hypogynous scales).
The specimens cited by RENDLE under his Cladium arfakense partly belong to Lepidosperma chinense, partly to M. teretifolia. The very inaccurate de- scription is probably a mixture of Lepidosperma and Machaerina characters. The nut is not described, although there are many ripe ones in the Machaerina specimens.
DOMIN and KÜKENTHAL united M. teretifolia with the closely related M. tetragona (LABILL.) KOYAMA from S. Australia and Tasmania. The latter species is mainly characterized by the prominently 4-angled stems and leaves. In the wider circumscription the correct name is M. tetragona, and in Cladium: C. tetragonum (LABILL.) BLACK, not C. teretifolium as was accepted by both DOMIN and KÜKENTHAL.