14 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF QUEENSLAND. 
unknown to her. As Domin, l.c., has pointed out, it is not possible to 
separate Streptachne from Aristida on the character of the reduced 
lateral awns, as there is a complete series of species in which the lateral 
awns are more and more reduced until they completely disappear. He 
reduces Streptachne to a section of Apistida. Henrard, op. cit. lviii. 
142, discusses the question again and after mentioning some American 
species of Aristida referred to Streptachne by Humbold, Bonpland and 
Kunth, states “If we compare these species with the genus, described 
by Brown, it is impossible to find differences in the spikelet-characters 
and we can find transitions between plants with short lateral awns and 
others where the lateral awns are quite obsolete and absent”; on p. 143 
he goes on “The section Streptachne is not a very natural one and it is 
impossible to limit it sharply. It is probably better to unite Streptachne 
and Ghaetaria, but for practical reasons I have separated them in this 
work. ’ 9 
To the above observations it may be added that the general appear- 
ance of the species is that of Aristida (as was noted by Brown), the 
appearance, texture and nervature of the glumes and lemmas are quite 
those of this genus, as is also the structure of the awns. The small 
palea and furrowed grain are likewise found in undoubted species of 
Aristida. The column is frequently bent away from the lower part 
of the lemma, and this feature appears not to be found in other sections 
of the genus, but it is not constant even in the type of Streptachne 
stipoides. The column of this species is a prolongation of the lemma 
proper, with 3 nerves running one into each awn. 
There are undoubted species of Aristida in Queensland with such 
a column between the body of the lemma and the awns, but all have 
unfurrowed lemmas with convolute margins; they are A. psammophila 
Henr., A. macroclada Henr., A. Schultzn Mez, A. Warburgii Mez, 
A. intricata S. T. Blake, A. latifolia Domin, A. holathera Domin and 
A. pernicio&a Domin. Of these A. perniciosa rather closely resembles 
Aristida utilis in foliage, in the elongated trailing uppermost internode, 
structure of the panicle, and in the texture, nervature and more or less 
in the shape of the glumes; the lateral awns, too, are decidedly shorter 
than the central awn. The points of resemblance to Aristida are so 
many and so important, while the two points of difference — the reduced 
lateral awns and the oblique column — are so inconstant in expression, 
that there seems no doubt that Domin and Henrard are right in treating 
Streptachne stipoides R.Br. as a species of Aristida. 
Since Sireptachne stipoides R.Br. and Aristida utilis F.M.Bail. are 
to be regarded as conspeeific, the following data must be considered 
before it is possible to decide the legitimate name of the species under 
Aristida : 
1. When Streptachne stipoides is transferred to Aristida the 
epithet stipoides becomes illegitimate in the new position 
owing to the earlier homonyms Aristida stipoides Lam. Tab. 
Encycl. & Meth. 157 (1791) and A. stipoides R.Br. Prodr. 
174 (1810). 
2. F. Mueller, in Journ. & Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S. Wales xv. 237 
(1882) cites Streptachne R.Br. as a synonym of Stipa L. but 
without remark and without transferring any species. 
