Szekessy Vilmos (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 58. (Budapest 1966)

Ujhelyi, J.: Data to the systematics of the sections Bulbosae and Caespitosae of the genus Koeleria. VI.

Description of the leaf epiderm : On the abaxial as well as the axial sides of the leaves the cells are small, narrow; the costal and intercostal zones are indistinct, hence the structure of the entire surface is wellnigh homogeneous, the cellular walls arc densely and conspicuously sinuous, the cells of the basic tissue alternate regularly with twin cells: the basally situated one is invariably a corkcell, the apical one a silica-body. The basal wall of the cork-cell is always straight, but it meets the silicabody in a semicircular line; the silica-body is circular, oval, or cubicoid the corkcell is always rich in suberine, hence it stains well; the twin-cells are often double in the costal zone, and there are only rarely macro-hair vestiges. The structure of the juvenile leaf differs from that of the senile one in having wider cellular rows, and the costal zone can much better be delimited

—due to the very width of the cellular rows (narrower in the costal zone)

—from the intercostal zone; no stomata occur in these zones (Plate IV, Fig. 2). Two of the specimens, collected in different localities, of the Madrid Herbarium, are very similar in habits ; the third one, from the Sierra de las Filabras, is robuster against the gracile stature of the other two. The plant is densely cespitose, gracile. The rhizome is 2—3 cm long, strongly incrassate and ligneous. The vetust vaginae are obviously either the remnants of the senile leaves, or already originally bladeless, squamiform ; they are large, entire, shiny, inflated, completely embracing the rhizome, hence truly bulbous. The plant is 15—35 cm high; the robust specimen mentioned above, attains 55 cm. The sheaths are 1—2.8 cm long, entire, densely pilose. The senile leaves are either very short, scaliform, or at most 3 cm long, 0.8—1 mm wide. They are generally convolute, only rarely conduphcate, grey, their sheaths 1—2 cm long, utriculate, minutely pilose or glabrescent, The ligulae are relatively large, 0.5 — 1 mm long, truncate, medially with a scabriusculous arista, The juvenile leaves are filiform, at most 4 cm long and 0.3 mm thick, entirely glabrous, grey, rigid, basally ciliate; or the sheath is 1.5 cm long, glabrous, its auricle ciliate. The ligule is pilose, 0.5 — 1 mm long. The culm is leafv to about half its length. The culm-blades are also convolute, resembling th e innovational leaves, 1.5—4 cm long, acute, pruinose; the vaginae are 3.5—9 cm long, glabrous, shiny or slightly pruinose, their auricle weakly developed. The ligulae are truncate, marginally crenate, occasionally terminating in a 3 mm long arista. The median vein of the aristula is finely hairy posteriorly. The base of the culm is incrassate. The panicle is cylindrical or oval, compact, attaining 4.2 cm, at other times only 2.5 cm. The panicle of the specimen from the Sierra de la Filabras is 4—7.2 cm long, showing the greatest resemblance to those of Koeleria rodriguezii UJH., while the panicles of the other two exemplars rather resemble those of Koeleria andreânszkyi UJH. Their panicle is looser and rather oval, because, in contrast with the sessile spikelets of the specimen mentioned above, those of the latter ones is ramifying, the spikelets stalked. This rachis is densely hairy. The spikelets are 4.5 mm long and 2.5 mm wide. They are 2—3-florate, glabriusculous, at other times with dense, short hairs. The glumae are narrower than in Koeleria rodriguezii UJH., rather acuminate, the lower 3.5, the upper one 4.2 mm long. The lemmae are 3.5 mm long, acuminate, the paleae are 3 mm long, membraneous, bicarinate. The antherae arc 1.2 mm long. Every feature of the plant evinces its diploid grade. The epidermal structure of the leaf is very striking, only the African Koeleria species have similarly constructed leaves. Only they have also wholly convolute, setaceous blades. It is almost beyond comprehension that E. HACKEL, or indeed K. DOMEN, failed to perceive the specificity of the plant, and listed it as merely a variety of Koeleria caudata (LINK) STEUDEL. In his Monography, K. DOMIN relegates