taxonID	type	description	language	source
03DFA71FFFD8FFCC851CF978FAD1FB3F.taxon	description	Dimeria R. Br. (1810) 204; Bor (1953) 553; Teerawat. et al. (2014) 137. — Type: Dimeria acinaciformis R. Br.	en	Veldkamp, J. F. (2016): A revision of Dimeria (Gramineae-Dimeriinae) in Malesia with a note on Cymbachne. Blumea 61 (3): 207-214, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693914, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693914
03DFA71FFFD8FFCC851CF978FAD1FB3F.taxon	distribution	Distribution — C. 67 species from Madagascar to S Korea, Micronesia and northern Australia. In Malesia 4 species. Note — Brown (1810) described the type species D. acinaciformis with three stamens, other authors (e. g. Hackel 1889: 86 ‘ certissime’) have reported two. Presl (1830) said two, his artist depicted three. Kiran Raj erroneously (fide litt.) reported the presence of 3 stamens in D. thwaitesii Hack.	en	Veldkamp, J. F. (2016): A revision of Dimeria (Gramineae-Dimeriinae) in Malesia with a note on Cymbachne. Blumea 61 (3): 207-214, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693914, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693914
03DFA71FFFDBFFCF8653FF1BFA68FAAC.taxon	distribution	Distribution — Sri Lanka, W India (Goa, Karnataka, Maha- rasthra), Burma (Tenasserim), Thailand (Trat), Cambodia (Kam- pong Speu), Vietnam (Dalat), Malesia: Malay Pen. (Kedah). Habitat — On scrub, grass land, pine and dipterocarp forest, 600 – 975 m altitude. Notes — The differences between D. leptorhachis and its var. velutina is only in the pubescence of the sheaths and leaves, which is insufficient to recognise these forms at any level. The differences with D. gracilis were equally unimportant. Collected in the same site in Kedah, G. Jerai, were Burkill 3304 (L, SING) and KLU 8157 (Kassim & Carrick) (KLU). Distribution remarkable, everywhere apparently very local.	en	Veldkamp, J. F. (2016): A revision of Dimeria (Gramineae-Dimeriinae) in Malesia with a note on Cymbachne. Blumea 61 (3): 207-214, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693914, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693914
03DFA71FFFDBFFCE8653FAEAFDD2FBBC.taxon	description	Annuals. Culms 0.1 – 0.6 m long. Nodes puberulous or bearded. Ligules 0.4 – 1 mm long, margin ciliolate (30 x!). Leaf blades 1.3 – 10 cm by 1 – 5 mm, pilose. Racemes 1, rachis flattened, 1.6 – 7 cm long, 0.4 – 0.9 mm wide, internodes 0.2 – 1.5 mm long, margin pilose (30 x!). Pedicels 0.2 – 0.7 mm long. Spikelets 2 – 4 mm long. Callus hairs 0.2 – 0.4 mm long. Lower glumes keel pilose (30 x!), apex acute to acuminate, not winged; upper glumes acuminate, keel not winged to winged, keel pilose (30 x!), wing narrow, not rugose. Awns (6 –) 9 – 18 mm long, incl. the (1 –) 2 – 6 mm long column. Anthers 0.5 – 1.5 mm long. Distribution — India (Kerala), disjunct with Burma (Bago, Kachin, Shan, Taninthayi), Thailand (Eastern: Buri Ram, Nakhon Ratchasima, Ubon Ratchathani; Southeastern: Chant- aburi; Central: Nakhon Nayok; Penins.: Phangnga, Ranong, Satun, Songkhla), Cambodia (Stung Treng), Vietnam, S China; Malesia: Malay Penins. (Kedah), Papua New Guinea (Western Prov.). Habitat — Lateritic, sandy soil, dry deciduous forest, savannahs, disturbed places, edge of rice field, beaches, locally abundant, 0 – 1200 m altitude. Collector’s notes — Annual. Culms violet. Blades green above, pale green underneath. Inflorescence axes greenish. Glumes green, pinkish purple, violet. Awns tan, violet. Notes — Reeder compared his D. monostachya to D. sinensis Rendle, a synonym of D. kurzii. The only difference outside the very disjunct distribution is that the awns are shorter than in D. kurzii. The isotype specimen in A does not have broadly winged upper glumes, as described. I have seen specimens with such short awns also from Vietnam (e. g. Schmid s. n. 3 Feb. 1954; P): –. Awns 9 – 18 mm long, incl. 2 – 6 mm long column D. kurzii –. Awns 6 – 8.5 mm long, incl. 1 – 2 mm long column ....... ................................. D. monostachya Teerawatananon et al. (2014: 138) differentiated between D. kurzii and D. sinensis by the absence or presence of a wing on the keel of the upper glume. Having studied some specimens of both species identified by them, I fail to find this difference (or any other). Indeed some of their ‘ D. sinensis ’ are completely wingless.	en	Veldkamp, J. F. (2016): A revision of Dimeria (Gramineae-Dimeriinae) in Malesia with a note on Cymbachne. Blumea 61 (3): 207-214, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693914, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693914
03DFA71FFFDAFFCE8653FAA8FA5CF8B0.taxon	description	Description after Teerawatananon et al. (2011 b, 2014). Perennials. Culms up to 1.2 m long. Nodes bearded. Ligules c. 0.6 mm long, margin ciliate. Leaf blades 10 – 20 cm by 3 – 4.5 mm, hairy. Racemes 2 – 3, rachis flattened, 8 – 16 cm long, 0.6 – 0.7 mm wide, internodes 1.5 – 2 mm long, margin ciliate. Pedicels 0.8 – 1.2 mm long. Spikelets 5 – 6 mm long. Callus hairs up to 0.5 mm long. Lower glumes keels not winged; upper glumes acute to acuminate, keel winged, ciliolate, broad, rugose. Awns 12 – 15 mm long, incl. 2 – 3 mm long column. Anthers 1.8 – 2 mm long. Distribution — Thailand (Peninsula: Satun) and so may be expected in the N Malay Peninsula. Habitat — Grasslands, moist savannah, c. 50 m altitude.	en	Veldkamp, J. F. (2016): A revision of Dimeria (Gramineae-Dimeriinae) in Malesia with a note on Cymbachne. Blumea 61 (3): 207-214, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693914, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693914
03DFA71FFFDAFFCE851CFB87FA81FBBF.taxon	description	Dimeria glabriuscula F. M. Bailey (1890) 83. — Type: Bailey 23 (holo BRI; MEL). Dimeria ornithopoda Trin. subvar. imperfecta Hack. (1889) 82. — Type: Lobb s. n. (holo G).	en	Veldkamp, J. F. (2016): A revision of Dimeria (Gramineae-Dimeriinae) in Malesia with a note on Cymbachne. Blumea 61 (3): 207-214, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693914, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693914
03DFA71FFFDAFFCE851CFB87FA81FBBF.taxon	distribution	Distribution — India to Japan, N Australia, Malesia: through- out. Habitat — Sunny, infertile soil, grass fields, road sides, river banks, abandoned rice fields in the dry season, resistant to mowing and grazing, locally abundant, 0 – 1800 m altitude. Vernacular name — Bird’s foot grass. Collector’s notes — Rhizomatous [?]. Culms prostrate, geniculate. Rachis white, margins green. Spikelets purple. Glumes with green veins, sometimes purple tinged. Column purplish brown. Anthers white, yellow. Stigmas white. Notes — This species is rather variable and Hackel (1889) optimistically and based on only a few specimens distinguished 6 varieties and 4 subvarieties, warning that intermediary forms occur. Bor (1953, 1960) for India distinguished four. Jansen (1953) for Malesia provisionally distinguished three. Duistermaat (2005) regarded them as extremes of a range and I agree. Specimens with spikelets 1 – 1.5 mm long and anthers up to 0.25 mm have been distinguished as var. gracillima Bor (1953: 576), and e. g. Teerawatananon et al. (2014: 143, lectotype!), but otherwise they cannot be distinguished. Some collections appear to be just dwarfed forms. Forms without awns or mucronate ones (var. glabra) occur within the same population (see also Ohwi 1965, Duistermaat 2005), but I have not seen mixed collections. BS 336719 (Ramos & Edaño) (SING) from Luzon had spikelets without awns or with short, simple, filiform ones in the same racemes.	en	Veldkamp, J. F. (2016): A revision of Dimeria (Gramineae-Dimeriinae) in Malesia with a note on Cymbachne. Blumea 61 (3): 207-214, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693914, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693914
03DFA71FFFDAFFCB8652F845FEF0FD2B.taxon	description	Cymbachne	en	Veldkamp, J. F. (2016): A revision of Dimeria (Gramineae-Dimeriinae) in Malesia with a note on Cymbachne. Blumea 61 (3): 207-214, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693914, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693914
03DFA71FFFDAFFCB8652F845FEF0FD2B.taxon	description	Bor wrote “ the description might easily apply to a species of Dimeria … no need for a change of name ”. However, the description mentions the presence of paired spikelets, whereby it can never refer to Dimeria R. Br. (1810), which is one of the few andropogonoid genera characterised by solitary ones. Dimeria spikelets have only 2 stamens, 3 are described here, and depicted by Presl (1830; but described as two!). This is most fortunate, as Cymbachne has priority over Dimeria, and there is now no need for a proposal for conservation to prevent about 70 new combinations. Probably following Bor, Clayton & Renvoize (1986: 376) have suggested that it was based on a damaged specimen of Dimeria R. Br. and thus it is perpetuated in the literature. Willdenow (1797) unseen and without argumentation trans- ferred it to Rottboellia L. f. as R. cymbachne, a superfluous name, as at the time there was no R. ciliata. There is no duplicate in the Willdenow herbarium (B). This combination, without any further reference, was used by Steudel (1854: 362). Hackel (1889: 450) stated to have seen a specimen collected by König in Copenhagen (C), labelled as Cymbachne ciliata. He observed (my translation) that “ the description is quite obscure and by no means without errors, for what he calls the female flowers seem to be nothing else than thick pedicels, remaining after de male spikelets have fallen off. Besides what else Retzius adds, agree well with the Koenig specimen and I do not doubt that I have described the same as Retzius’ plant. A specimen in the herbarium Retzius, now in Lund, is to be wished for ”. In C there are two (!) sheets, which makes them suspect, be- cause a single sheet was expected in Lund: – C 10016736 with ‘ Rottboellia cymbachne Willd.? ’ and a label by Hackel: Andropogon cymbachne Hack., and on the back annotated as part of the Herbarium Vahl, and with the names Andropogon cymbachne and Cymbachne ciliata Retzii (K neg. 19385) and ‘ Konig’ (Fig. 3). – C 10016737 with a label by Hackel ‘ Andropogon cymbachne Hack. / Cymbachne ciliaris Retz. ’ and a reference to Hof- man Dory (??) (K neg. 19384). The ‘ Rottboellia ’ in pencil is to be neglected. A note by Clayton states “ does not match description ” (Fig. 4). These specimens belong to Andropogon canaliculatus Schumach. This is an African species ranging from Mali to Tanzania and Zimbabwe and never could have been collected by König. Obviously, they were mislabelled and very well could be iso- types of Schumacher’s species described from Ghana, the type of which has otherwise not been found as yet. However, the type of A. eucnemis Trin. (1832) may very well be an isotype of this, and is here designated as the neotype. Note that later typifications do not make a name superfluous (ICN Art. 52, Note 2). Hackel for some reason with a query included Arthrostachys Desv. (1831) with A. gracilis. This was described without provenance or collector and is immediately distinct by the articulate inflorescence axes. It was not mentioned by Steudel (1854). Clayton & Renvoize (1986: 349) and Soreng & Pennington (2003) regarded it as a synonym of Andropogon with which I can agree. Arthrostachya Link (1827) is not an earlier homonym (Art. 53.3. Ex. 12). The undaunted Roberty (1960) not having seen the type, either, nevertheless accepted Cymbachne for 8 Asian and African species with 9 varieties and 72 subvarieties, which others have regarded as taxa belonging to Andropogon (incl. Arthrostachys Desv., Diectomis Kunth, Homoeatherum Nees, and Pollinia Spreng., p. p., Rottboellia auct.). It may be noted that Palisot de Beauvois (1812: 109, 159) mentioned a “ Cymbachne Lour. ”. This is an error for Stegosia Lour. From the diagnosis and description I have the impression that he had an unawned species of Ischaemum (I. muticum L.?) before him.	en	Veldkamp, J. F. (2016): A revision of Dimeria (Gramineae-Dimeriinae) in Malesia with a note on Cymbachne. Blumea 61 (3): 207-214, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693914, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693914
03DFA71FFFDFFFCB851CFD7CFE8CFC48.taxon	description	=? Ischaemum muticum L.	en	Veldkamp, J. F. (2016): A revision of Dimeria (Gramineae-Dimeriinae) in Malesia with a note on Cymbachne. Blumea 61 (3): 207-214, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693914, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693914
