Eleocharis retroflexa
Content
Distribution
Asia present, Asia-Tropical, Australasia: Queensland (Queensland present), Tropical Africa present present, tropical America present
Probably pantropic: tropical America, Asia, and Australia (Queensland); common through- out Malesia.
The records for tropical Africa () SVENSON partly refers to E. brainii , remarking that it is questionable whether E. chaetaria actually occurs in tropical Africa. Map of E. retroflexa s.s. in .
The records for tropical Africa () SVENSON partly refers to E. brainii , remarking that it is questionable whether E. chaetaria actually occurs in tropical Africa. Map of E. retroflexa s.s. in .
Notes
In running water with hairlike stems and proliferous spikelets (E. confervoides of MIQUEL). In shallow, stagnant water often propagating by re- curving or decumbent stems developing young plants in the axils of the glumes.
SVENSON thinks E. retroflexa of the New World and E. chaetaria of the Old World are clearly distinct, E. chaetaria having a much lower and blunter style-base, and larger and deeper markings on the nut. Apart from the question whether these trifling characters are sufficient to justify specific separation, it may be remarked that in the Malesian specimens the style-base is variable in shape and sometimes much approaches that of American ones. Apparently this is also the case in the Australian specimens (see S. T. BLAKE, l.c.). Already KUNTH (1837) remarked that E. retroflexa differs from E. chaetaria only in the longer, more acute style-base, and in its native country. Agreeing with his 'species vix servanda' I think it desirable to unite the two.
SVENSON thinks E. retroflexa of the New World and E. chaetaria of the Old World are clearly distinct, E. chaetaria having a much lower and blunter style-base, and larger and deeper markings on the nut. Apart from the question whether these trifling characters are sufficient to justify specific separation, it may be remarked that in the Malesian specimens the style-base is variable in shape and sometimes much approaches that of American ones. Apparently this is also the case in the Australian specimens (see S. T. BLAKE, l.c.). Already KUNTH (1837) remarked that E. retroflexa differs from E. chaetaria only in the longer, more acute style-base, and in its native country. Agreeing with his 'species vix servanda' I think it desirable to unite the two.
Citation
BACK. 1928: Onkr. Suiker: 155: t. 160
KURZ 1864 – In: Nat. Tijd. N. I.: 223
SVENS. 1937: p. 236. – In: Rhodora: t. 461, f. 11
KOYAMA 1957 – In: Contr. Inst. Bot. Un. Montreal: 37
ZOLL. 1854 – In: Syst. Verz.: 62
KUNTH 1837 – In: En.: 140
SVENS. 1937: p. 250. – In: Rhodora: t. 461, f. 10
Miq. 1856 – In: Fl. Ind. Bat.: 298
Ridl. 1925 – In: Fl. Mal. Pen.: 151
KERN 1968 – In: Back. & Bakh.f., Fl. Java 3: 460
S. T. BLAKE 1947 – In: Proc. R. Soc. Queensl.: 42
NAVES 1882: NOV. App.: 307
CAMUS 1912: p. 87. – In: Fl. Gen. I.-C.: f. 12,7-8
R. & S. 1961 – In: J. Fac. Sc. Un. Tokyo: 88
Koord. 1911: Exk. Fl. Java: 197
URB. 1949 – In: Bekn. Fl. Java, (em. ed.): fam. 246, p. 14
R. & S. 1907 – In: Philip. J. Sc.: Bot. 90
BOECK. 1870 – In: Linnaea: 428
MOR. 1846: Syst. Verz.: 96
VAHL 1806 – In: En.: 305
Ridl. 1907 – In: Mat. Fl. Mal. Pen. (Monoc.): 77
Clarke 1893 – In: Fl. Br. Ind.: 629
Merr. 1923 – In: En. Philip.: 120
R. & S. 1922: Atlas: f. 245