Mapania enodis
Content
Description
Leaves coriaceous, linear, with the midnerve prominent beneath and 2 of the lateral nerves prominent above, rather gradually attenuate towards the slender, triquetrous, aculeate-scabrous tip, remotely aculeate-scabrous on the margins and the upper part of the midnerve on the lower side, hardly narrowed towards the conduplicate base, septate-nodulose by numerous cross-nervules, glaucous, paler beneath, (45 cm-)1-1½ m by 1-2½ cm;
Inflorescence consisting of a single spikelet (very rarely 1 or 2 lateral spikelets in the axils of the lower glumes), conical, acute, 2-3½(-4) by 1-1½(-2) cm.
Flowers about as long as the glumes;
Distribution
Asia-Tropical: Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia present, Singapore present); Sumatera (Sumatera present), Djambi present, Johore present, Palembang present, Peninsular Thailand present, W. Borneo present
Peninsular Thailand; in Malesia: Sumatra (Djambi, Palembang), Malay Peninsula (Johore, Singapore), W. Borneo.
Notes
The type collection of Lepironia enodis MIQ. consists of fruiting scapes only. MIQUEL placed this species next to Lepironia articulata (RETZ.) DOMIN (= L mucronata L. C. RICH.) as he supposed it to be leafless. Immature complete specimens from the same locality were described as Lepironia foliosa MIQ. In 1870, when aware of his mistake, MIQUEL united the two under the binomial Lepironia enodis, which choice must be followed.
M. longa CLARKE was based on two collections, RIDLEY 169 from Singapore and MOTLEY 1190 from Borneo (see ). In the Flora of British India CLARKE placed the species in his section Pandanophyllum, remarking that perhaps it might better be referred to sect. Halostemma. This remark is due to the fact that RIDLEY’S specimen is M. enodis (belonging in CLARKE’S sect. Pandanophyllum), whereas MOTLEY’S collection, from which the description was drawn up, belongs in his sect. Halostemma.
M. longa CLARKE was based on two collections, RIDLEY 169 from Singapore and MOTLEY 1190 from Borneo (see ). In the Flora of British India CLARKE placed the species in his section Pandanophyllum, remarking that perhaps it might better be referred to sect. Halostemma. This remark is due to the fact that RIDLEY’S specimen is M. enodis (belonging in CLARKE’S sect. Pandanophyllum), whereas MOTLEY’S collection, from which the description was drawn up, belongs in his sect. Halostemma.
Citation
UITTIEN 1936 – In: Rec. Trav. Bot. Néerl.: 149
CAMUS 1912 – In: Fl. Gén. I.-C.: 178
Merr. 1921: En. Born.: 65
SCHEFF. 1874 – In: Nat. Tijd. N. I.: 90
Ridl. 1907 – In: Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. (Monoc.): 105
ex CLARKE 1894 – In: Fl. Br. Ind.: 683
1925 – In: Fl. Mal. Pen.: 173
1898 – In: J. Linn. Soc. Bot.: 95
Miq. 1870: Illustr: 60: t. 21
BOECK. 1871 – In: Linnaea: 141