*CHARACTER NOTES 
#1. Facts and opinions on the etymology (derivations) and meanings
(allusions) of plant names can be interesting or amusing, but in the
present context are of little real consequence. In the case of grass
genera, only rarely is the name really diagnostically informative; in fact
the meanings (or the supposed meanings) are often simply misleading.
\par{}The only genuine authority on the intended allusion of a name would
be the taxonomist who coined it; however, it has never been standard
taxonomic practice to explain these in original descriptions. In any case,
it was impracticable for the present purpose to routinely research original
generic descriptions, many of which are quite inaccessible. While compiling
the (incomplete) information hazarded here, it became apparent that the
meanings of names given in standard regional floras (which are generally
unreferenced) often differ from one to another; some seem very unlikely,
and one (for \i{}Eragrostis\i0{}, q.v.) may have been painstakingly
bowdlerized. \par{}Special difficulties arise from the fact that many
supposed allusions quoted today evidently predate the advent of modern,
standard descriptive terminology for grass spikelets. Thus, chaff and
scale became glume, a term formally applied indiscriminately to glumes
and lemmas. \par{}In view of all this, there seems little point in worrying
whether particular names have been taken directly from the Latin, or (as
seems more usual) Latinized from the Greek; likewise no attempt has been
made here to standardize diverse transliterations from Greek script. 
#3:6. ~ (alternatively) is here used to indicate sometimes included in
or reduced to. Including numerous genera reduced to synonymy in recent
times by practitioners of cladistics, which for practical purposes are
defensible in terms of comparative morphology, anatomy and physiology; cf.
the detailed comparative descriptions provided here. \i{}Sensu lato\i0{}
descriptions are easily prepared from these using the Intkey 'Summary'
facility, should they be required. 
#5. The data would be improved by inclusion of nomenclatural references. At
present, they are given only for genera not covered by Clayton and Renvoize
(1986). 
#7. Annual: plants progressing from germination to seed production and
perishing, within that period. \par{}Biennial (not known in grasses?): a
plant normally requiring two years to complete its life-cycle, growing
vegetatively in the first, then flowering, fruiting and perishing in the
second. \par{}Perennial: a plant which persists and continues growth for
several to many years. Detectable in herbaceous grasses by the shrivelled
remnants of old sheaths and culms. 
#32:53. The compiled data almost exclusively for Australian taxa. 
#47. Auricles: see Clifford and Watson (1977) for definition. 
#61-62. Data almost exclusively on Chloridoideae, provided by An Van den
Borre (1994). 
#73. Gynodioecious: Comprising plants of two sesx forms. In one the
flowers are functionally hermaphrodite, and in the other the flowers are
functionally female through the action of a system causing reproducible
male sterility; both sex forms produce seeds. 
#81:84. Data mainly from Connor (1979). 
#85. Including "proliferous inflorescences". The records compiled here are
no doubt incomplete for wild grasses, and do not include forms cultivated
as cereals, where the grain is retained prior to threshing (essential for
organized harvesting). 
#86. See McLure (1973), Calderon and Soderstom (1973), etc., for
definitions. 
#87. In most grasses, florets develop alternately on either side of the
1-many floreted (distichous) spikelets. Sometimes, however, secondary
spikelets develop in the axils of the proximal lemmas instead of florets.
The resulting complexes, known as 'pseudospikelets', are characteristic of
some bamboos. \par{}See McLure (1973), Calderon and Soderstom (1973), etc.,
for definitions. 
#89. In the absence of a suite of characters to deal satisfactorily with
general inflorescence form, this has to suffice. Note that the coded data
are frequently supplemented by important data comments, and forms for which
these states are inappropriate are described exclusively via comments. 
#124. Data mainly from Webster (1985). \par{}Female-fertile spikelet: a
spikelet in which at least one floret has the potential to produce fruit.
This and parallel expressions (see below) are peculiar to this package and
its derivatives. They reflect the necessity in classification and
identification for a term enabling the recording of comparative data across
the diversity of sexual expression in the family (for example, permitting
structures of the female spikelets of dioecious grasses to be compared with
homologous structures in those where the spikelets are exclusively
bisexual, and distinguishing them from those of male-only or sterile
spikelets). \par{}Female-fertile floret: a floret having the potential to
bear fruit. \par{}Female-fertile lemma: a lemma axillant to a
female-fertile floret (q.v.). \par{}Female-fertile palea: a palea
axillant to a female-fertile flower (the palea of a female-fertile floret,
q.v.). 
#140-149:154-156:162-195:197-212:214:216:218-253:255-270:272-284.
Female-fertile spikelet: a spikelet in which at least one floret has the
potential to produce fruit. This and parallel expressions (see below) are
peculiar to this package and its derivatives. They reflect the necessity in
classification and identification for a term enabling the recording of
comparative data across the diversity of sexual expression in the family
(for example, permitting structures of the female spikelets of dioecious
grasses to be compared with homologous structures in those where the
spikelets are exclusively bisexual, and distinguishing them from those of
male-only or sterile spikelets). \par{}Female-fertile floret: a floret
having the potential to bear fruit. \par{}Female-fertile lemma: a lemma
axillant to a female-fertile floret (q.v.). \par{}Female-fertile palea: a
palea axillant to a female-fertile flower (the palea of a female-fertile
floret, q.v.). 208:210. Data mainly from Webster (1985).
\par{}Female-fertile spikelet: a spikelet in which at least one floret has
the potential to produce fruit. This and parallel expressions (see below)
are peculiar to this package and its derivatives. They reflect the
necessity in classification and identification for a term enabling the
recording of comparative data across the diversity of sexual expression in
the family (for example, permitting structures of the female spikelets of
dioecious grasses to be compared with homologous structures in those where
the spikelets are exclusively bisexual, and distinguished from those of
male-only or sterile spikelets). \par{}Female-fertile floret: a floret
having the potential to bear fruit. \par{}Female-fertile lemma: a lemma
axillant to a female-fertile floret (q.v.). \par{}Female-fertile palea: a
palea axillant to a female-fertile flower (the palea of a female-fertile
floret, q.v.). 
#196. Really a redundant character, but universally recorded and very
useful for keys. \par{}Female-fertile spikelet: a spikelet in which at
least one floret has the potential to produce fruit. This and parallel
expressions (see below) are peculiar to this package and its derivatives.
They reflect the necessity in classification and identification for a term
enabling the recording of comparative data across the diversity of sexual
expression in the family (for example, permitting structures of the female
spikelets of dioecious grasses to be compared with homologous structures in
those where the spikelets are exclusively bisexual, and distinguishing them
from those of male-only or sterile spikelets). \par{}Female-fertile
floret: a floret having the potential to bear fruit. \par{}Female-fertile
lemma: a lemma axillant to a female-fertile floret (q.v.).
\par{}Female-fertile palea: a palea axillant to a female-fertile flower
(the palea of a female-fertile floret, q.v.). 
#213. Crown: in Stipeae, a solid cylinder (sometimes shorter than wide)
resulting from fusion of the lemma towards the apex. Sometimes associated
with a cuplike structure and or a ring of hairs beneath the awn. See
Barkworth (1990), Jacobs \i{}et al.\i0{} (1995). \par{}Female-fertile
spikelet: a spikelet in which at least one floret has the potential to
produce fruit. This and parallel expressions (see below) are peculiar to
this package and its derivatives. They reflect the necessity in
classification and identification for a term enabling the recording of
comparative data across the diversity of sexual expression in the family
(for example, permitting structures of the female spikelets of dioecious
grasses to be compared with homologous structures in those where the
spikelets are exclusively bisexual, and distinguishing them from those of
male-only or sterile spikelets). \par{}Female-fertile floret: a floret
having the potential to bear fruit. \par{}Female-fertile lemma: a lemma
axillant to a female-fertile floret (q.v.). \par{}Female-fertile palea: a
palea axillant to a female-fertile flower (the palea of a female-fertile
floret, q.v.). 
#254. See Barkworth (1990), Jacobs \i{}et al.\i0{} (1995).
\par{}Female-fertile spikelet: a spikelet in which at least one floret
has the potential to produce fruit. This and parallel expressions (see
below) are peculiar to this package and its derivatives. They reflect the
necessity in classification and identification for a term enabling the
recording of comparative data across the diversity of sexual expression in
the family (for example, permitting structures of the female spikelets of
dioecious grasses to be compared with homologous structures in those where
the spikelets are exclusively bisexual, and distinguishing them from those
of male-only or sterile spikelets). \par{}Female-fertile floret: a floret
having the potential to bear fruit. \par{}Female-fertile lemma: a lemma
axillant to a female-fertile floret (q.v.). \par{}Female-fertile palea: a
palea axillant to a female-fertile flower (the palea of a female-fertile
floret, q.v.). 
#271. Note that this fairly unsatisfactory character is not equivalent to
presence or absence of xylem. However, the distinction is usually fairly
obvious. \par{}Female-fertile spikelet: a spikelet in which at least one
floret has the potential to produce fruit. This and parallel expressions
(see below) are peculiar to this package and its derivatives. They reflect
the necessity in classification and identification for a term enabling the
recording of comparative data across the diversity of sexual expression in
the family (for example, permitting structures of the female spikelets of
dioecious grasses to be compared with homologous structures in those where
the spikelets are exclusively bisexual, and distinguishing them from those
of male-only or sterile spikelets). \par{}Female-fertile floret: a floret
having the potential to bear fruit. \par{}Female-fertile lemma: a lemma
axillant to a female-fertile floret (q.v.). \par{}Female-fertile palea: a
palea axillant to a female-fertile flower (the palea of a female-fertile
floret, q.v.). 
#301. Data extensively from Terrell (1971), Rosenburtt \i{}et al\i0{}.
(1972). 
#302. Data mainly from Rosengurtt \i{}et al\i0{}. (1972). 
#303. Data mainly from Tateoka (1954, 1955, 1962). 
#304. Data extensively from Reeder (1962, 1967) and Decker (1964). 
#310. Data extensively from Muller (1978). 
#311-314. Data on seedling leaf characters mainly from Kuwabara (1960,
1961) and H.T. Clifford (\i{}pers. comm.\i0{}). 
#327-331:351:353-354:359-360. Long-cells and short-cells (hyphenated,
nouns) are the two categories of cells (exclusive of stomata and
subsidiaries, and trichomes) of which a typical abaxial grass leaf blade
epidermis is composed. The former are typically elongated horizontally
(parallel with the long axis of the blade), while the latter are more
nearly equidimensional or even somewhat vertically elongated. Short-cells
are often but not always resolvable into silica-cells (containing silica
bodies) or  cork-cells (with suberised walls). In a very few grasses,
short-cells are absent, and in some others long-cells may be relatively
short or short-cells relatively long; however, their recognition seldom
poses problems, and the homologies are usually obvious. The term
fundamental cell, used in a few pulications, is equivalent to
long-cell. The latter is preferred here, in line with L.W.s policy of
following where possible the terminology used in Metcalfes superb
compendium (1960) of anatomical descriptions. It is unfortunate that his
work, and the high standards he set, have been largely ignored by the
United States school of anatomists and agrostologists. \par{}All the leaf
anatomical data in these descriptions refer to preparations made from the
mid-zone of the laminae of mature, normal leaves; and descriptions of the
epidermis refer exclusively to the lower (abaxial) surface of the blade. To
obtain reliably comparative data, avoid seedling and flag leaves, culm
leaves with blades reduced or missing, and conspicuously unhealthy
material. Attempted identification of leaf fragments should be conducted
with these sampling considerations in mind, and the results qualified
accordingly.
\par{}Epidermal preparations have been described as observed under
transmitted light microscopy, as though orientated with the long axis of
the leaf (as indictated by its main veins) arranged horizontally across
the field of view. Vertical thus means at right angles to the long axis
of the leaf and its main veins, and parallel with its surface. \par{}For
detailed discussion of grass leaf blade terminology, sampling and
preparative techniques, and illustrations, see Metcalfe (1960), Clifford
and Watson (1967) and Watson and Dallwitz (1988). Note that many of the
epidermal characters are inacccessible, or cannot be reliably recorded,
via Scanning E.M. \par{}The accompanying file informs on the samples from
which the original input in descriptions derive. 
#332-335:337-338. Microhairs in abaxial leaf blade epidermes are sometimes
rare or hard to find, and reliably recording their absence demands
diligently pursuing them, preferably by transmitted light microscopy.
Scanning e.m. is unsatisfactory in this connection, and is of course
uninformative on their detailed morphology.
\par{}See Johnston, C.R. and Watson, L.(1977); for ultrastructure and 
secretory properties, see Amarasinghe and Watson (1988 and 1989) and Amarasinghe
(1990). 
#336:355:362:369:376-377. Data almost exclusively on Chloridoideae,
provided by An Van den Borre (1994). 
\par{}All the comparative leaf anatomical data in these descriptions refer 
to preparations made from the mid-zone of the laminae of mature, normal
leaves; and descriptions of the epidermis refer exclusively to the lower
(abaxial) surface of the blade. To obtain reliably comparative data, avoid
seedling and flag leaves, culm leaves with blades reduced or missing, and
conspicuously unhealthy material. Attempted identification of leaf
fragments should be conducted with these sampling considerations in mind,
and the results qualified accordingly. \par{}Epidermal preparations have
been described \i{}as seen under transmitted light microcopy\i0{} 
and orientated
with the long axis of the leaf (as indictated by its main veins) arranged
horizontally across the field of view. Vertical thus means at right
angles to the long axis of the leaf and its main veins, and parallel with
its surface. \par{}For detailed discussion of grass leaf blade
terminology, sampling and preparative techniques, and illustrations, see
Metcalfe (1960), Clifford and Watson (1977) and Watson and Dallwitz (1988).
\par{}The accompanying file informs on the samples from which the
descriptions derive. 
#339:342-344. For species sampled for microhair measurements, see the list
accompanying this package, plus Metcalfe (1960). \par{}All the leaf
anatomical data in these descriptions refer to preparations made from the
mid-zone of the laminae of mature, normal leaves; and descriptions of the
epidermis refer exclusively to the lower (abaxial) surface of the blade. To
obtain reliably comparative data, avoid seedling and flag leaves, culm
leaves with blades reduced or missing, and conspicuously unhealthy
material. Attempted identification of leaf fragments should be conducted
with these sampling considerations in mind, and the results qualified
accordingly. \par{}Observing the epidermal characters used here requires
transmission light microscopy, because their interpretation depends on
viewing cells in in optical section, or focusing into them. Many useful
epidermal characters are unavailable or are not reliably recordable from
scanning electron micrographs. \par{}Epidermal preparations have been
described as though orientated with the long axis of the leaf (as
indictated by its main veins) arranged horizontally across the field of
view. Vertical thus means at right angles to the long axis of the leaf
and its main veins, and parallel with its surface. \par{}For detailed
discussion of grass leaf blade terminology, sampling and preparative
techniques, and illustrations, see Metcalfe (1960), Clifford and Watson
(1967) and Watson and Dallwitz (1988). \par{}The accompanying file informs
on the samples from which the descriptions derive. 
#356:361:363-365. In adequate preparations, silica bodies are conspicuous
by their refractory appearance, and by the frequent occurrence within them
of tiny granules. For taxonomic purposes, it is essential to distinguish
\i{}silica bodies\i0{} from \i{}silica cells\i0{} (which may be empty), and
their shapes from the shapes of the cells containing them. This is an
important reason for recommending transmission light microscopy in the
present connection, and for staining preparations with phenolic Bismarck
Brown (for recipe, see Clifford and Watson 1977). Scanning electron
micrographs of epidermes, which are becoming increasingly popular in
anatomical and palaeobotanical work, lose much information here and
elsewhere. \par{}All the leaf anatomical data in these descriptions refer
to preparations made from the mid-zone of the laminae of mature, normal
leaves; and descriptions of the epidermis refer exclusively to the lower
(abaxial) surface of the blade. To obtain reliably comparative data, avoid
seedling and flag leaves, culm leaves with blades reduced or missing, and
conspicuously unhealthy material. Attempted identification of leaf
fragments should be conducted with these sampling considerations in mind,
and the results qualified accordingly. \par{}Epidermal preparations have
been described as though orientated with the long axis of the leaf (as
indictated by its main veins) arranged horizontally across the field of
view. Vertical thus means at right angles to the long axis of the leaf
and its main veins, and parallel with its surface. \par{}For detailed
discussion of grass leaf blade terminology, sampling and preparative
techniques, and illustrations, see Metcalfe (1960), Clifford and Watson
(1977) and Watson and Dallwitz (1988). \par{}The accompanying file informs
on the samples from which the descriptions derive. 
#357-358. 
#366:390-396:398-399. All the leaf anatomical data in these descriptions
refer to preparations made from the mid-zone of the laminae of normal,
mature leaves. To obtain reliably comparative data, avoid seedling and flag
leaves, culm leaves with blades reduced or missing, and conspicuously
unhealthy material. Attempted identification of leaf fragments should be
conducted with these sampling considerations in mind, and the results
qualified accordingly. \par{}The accompanying file informs on the samples
from which the descriptions derive. \par{}For detailed discussion of grass
leaf blade terminology, sampling and preparative techniques, and
illustrations, see Metcalfe (1960), Clifford and Watson (1967) and Watson
and Dallwitz (1988). 
#370. Maximum cells-distant count: the maximum number of cells separating
any individual chlorenchymatous mesophyll or photosynthetic carbon
assimilation (PCA) cell from the nearest parenchymatous bundle sheath (PBS)
or photosynthetic carbon reduction (PCR) cell. This parameter defines the
relatively unambiguous one cell distant criterion, whereby
C\sub{}3\nosupersub{} and C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} forms are reliably and
easily distinguished. By contrast,
C\sub{}3\nosupersub{}/C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} assignments by radiateness of
chlorenchyma, or by recognition of Kranz/non-Kranz anatomy, are less
satisfactory: radiateness is ambiguous and is often misleading, and many
C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} leaves (\i{}Arundinella\i0{}, \i{}Triodia\i0{} etc.)
do not exhibit typical Kranz anatomy. \par{}The terms PCA (primary carbon
assimilation) and PCR (photosynthetic carbon reduction: containing Rubisco)
are applicable to the cells and tissues of C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} forms
only. For these, the term PCR is preferable to Kranz, since it is
directly indicative of physiological function, and PCR cells do not always
occur in Kranz bundle sheaths. \par{}For detailed discussion, see
Hattersley and Watson (1975) and Hattersley \i{}et al\i0{}. (1977). 
#371-372. For detailed discussion and definitions of C\sub{}4\nosupersub{}
anatomical types, see Hattersley \i{}et al\i0{}. (1977), Hattersley (1987
and 1992), Hattersley and Watson (1993). 
#373. Hatch and Kagawa (1974); Gutierrez \i{}et al\i0{}. (1974a and 1974b);
Hatch, Kagawa and Craig (1975); Prendergast \i{}et al\i0{}. (1987). 
#374. Refers to the presence (XyMS+) or absence (XyMS-) of cells between
the metaxylem vessel elements and laterally adjacent chlorenchymatous
bundle sheath (CBS, Kranz or PCR: C\sub{}4\nosupersub{}) or
parenchymatous bundle sheath (PBS: C\sub{}3\nosupersub{}) cells in the
primary lateral vascular bundles (i.e. in the largest bundles exhibiting
both metaxylem and protoxylem) of the leaf blade (see Hattersley and Watson
1976). When properly applied, this unambiguous criterion reliably
distinguishes NADP-ME species (XyMS-) from PCK and NAD-ME species (both
XyMS+). The terms MS (mestome sheath) and PS (parenchymatous sheath) of
Brown (1975, 1977) refer to the supposed homologies of photosynthetic
carbon reduction (PCR, Kranz) sheaths in C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} forms. The
MS condition is identified by XyMS-, the PS one by XyMS+. Dengler \i{}et
al\i0{}. (1985) provide comparative ontological evidence in support of the
MS/PS hypothesis. \par{}For detailed discussion of C\sub{}4\nosupersub{}
anatomical tissue configurations and physiological types, see Hattersley
(1992) and Hattersley and Watson (1993). \par{}All the leaf anatomical data
in these descriptions refer to preparations made from the mid-zone of the
laminae of normal, mature leaves. To obtain reliably comparative data,
avoid seedling and flag leaves, culm leaves with blades reduced or missing,
and conspicuously unhealthy material. Attempted identification of leaf
fragments should be conducted with these sampling considerations in mind,
and the results qualified accordingly. \par{}The accompanying file informs
on the samples from which the descriptions derive. \par{}For detailed
discussion of grass leaf blade terminology, sampling and preparative
techniques, and illustrations, see Metcalfe (1960), Clifford and Watson
(1967) and Watson and Dallwitz (1988). 
#375. Data extensively from Ellis (1977), Prendergast and Hattersley
(1987). \par{}The terms PCA (primary carbon assimilation) and PCR
(photosynthetic carbon reduction: containing Rubisco) are applicable to the
cells and tissues of C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} forms only. For these, the term
PCR is preferable to Kranz, since it is directly indicative of
physiological function, and PCR cells do not always occur in Kranz bundle
sheaths. 
#378-379. Data mainly from Prendergast (1987). \par{}The terms PCA (primary
carbon assimilation) and PCR (photosynthetic carbon reduction: containing
Rubisco) are applicable to the cells and tissues of C\sub{}4\nosupersub{}
forms only. For these, the term PCR is preferable to Kranz, since it is
directly indicative of physiological function, and PCR cells do not always
occur in Kranz bundle sheaths. 
#380. Hattersley and Browning (1981). \par{}The terms PCA (primary carbon
assimilation) and PCR (photosynthetic carbon reduction: containing Rubisco)
are applicable to the cells and tissues of C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} forms
only. For these, the term PCR is preferable to Kranz, since it is
directly indicative of physiological function, and PCR cells do not always
occur in Kranz bundle sheaths. 
#381. Data from Prendergast (1987), Prendergast \i{}et al\i0{}. (1987).
\par{}The terms PCA (primary carbon assimilation) and PCR (photosynthetic
carbon reduction: containing Rubisco) are applicable to the cells and
tissues of C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} forms only. For these, the term PCR is
preferable to Kranz, since it is directly indicative of physiological
function, and PCR cells do not always occur in Kranz bundle sheaths. 
#382. Gutierrez \i{}et al\i0{}. (1974), Carolin \i{}et al\i0{}. (1973),
Hattersley and Browning (1981). \par{}The terms PCA (primary carbon
assimilation) and PCR (photosynthetic carbon reduction: containing Rubisco)
are applicable to the cells and tissues of C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} forms
only. For these, the term PCR is preferable to Kranz, since it is
directly indicative of physiological function, and PCR cells do not always
occur in Kranz bundle sheaths. 
#383. Data extensively from Ellis (1977), Brown (1960), Prendergast and
Hattersley (1987). \par{}The terms PCA (primary carbon assimilation) and
PCR (photosynthetic carbon reduction: containing Rubisco) are applicable to
the cells and tissues of C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} forms only. For these, the
term PCR is preferable to Kranz, since it is directly indicative of
physiological function, and PCR cells do not always occur in Kranz bundle
sheaths. \par{}For detailed discussion of C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} anatomical
tissue configurations and physiological types, see Hattersley (1992) and
Hattersley and Watson (1993). 
#388. The terms PCA (primary carbon assimilation) and PCR (photosynthetic
carbon reduction: containing Rubisco) are applicable to the cells and
tissues of C\sub{}4\nosupersub{} forms only. For these, the term PCR is
preferable to Kranz, since it is directly indicative of physiological
function, and PCR cells do not always occur in Kranz bundle sheaths. 
#389:401-402:408. Colourless cells, tissue: mesophyll with unlignified
cell walls and seemingly without cytoplasmic contents. A characteristic
feature of many mature grass leaf blades, offering much scope for
ontogenetic and functional-physiological work. Sometimes (and commonly in
Chloridoideae) linking with bulliforms to divide the blade longitudinally
into compartments, which exhibut varying degrees of completeness from
genus to genus. \par{}All the leaf anatomical data in these descriptions
refer to preparations made from the mid-zone of the laminae of normal,
mature leaves. To obtain reliably comparative data, avoid seedling and flag
leaves, culm leaves with blades reduced or missing, and conspicuously
unhealthy material. Attempted identification of leaf fragments should be
conducted with these sampling considerations in mind, and the results
qualified accordingly. \par{}The accompanying file informs on the samples
from which the descriptions derive. \par{}For detailed discussion of grass
leaf blade terminology, sampling and preparative techniques, and
illustrations, see Metcalfe (1960), Clifford and Watson (1967) and Watson
and Dallwitz (1988). 
#397. All the leaf anatomical data in these descriptions refer to
preparations made from the mid-zone of the laminae of normal, mature
leaves. To obtain reliably comparative data, avoid seedling and flag
leaves, culm leaves with blades reduced or missing, and conspicuously
unhealthy material. Attempted identification of leaf fragments should be
conducted with these sampling considerations in mind, and the results
qualified accordingly. \par{}The accompanying file informs on the samples
from which the descriptions derive. \par{}For detailed discussion of grass
leaf blade terminology, sampling and preparative techniques, and
illustrations, see Metcalfe (1960), Clifford and Watson (1967) and Watson
and Dallwitz (1988). \par{}Colourless cells, tissue: mesophyll with
unlignified cell walls and seemingly without cytoplasmic contents. A
characteristic feature of many mature grass leaf blades, offering much
scope for ontogenetic and functional-physiological work. Sometimes (and
commonly in Chloridoideae) linking with bulliforms to divide the blade
longitudinally into compartments, which exhibut varying degrees of
completeness from genus to genus. \par{}All the leaf anatomical data in
these descriptions refer to preparations made from the mid-zone of the
laminae of normal, mature leaves. To obtain reliably comparative data,
avoid seedling and flag leaves, culm leaves with blades reduced or missing,
and conspicuously unhealthy material. Attempted identification of leaf
fragments should be conducted with these sampling considerations in mind,
and the results qualified accordingly. \par{}The accompanying file informs
on the samples from which the descriptions derive. \par{}For detailed
discussion of grass leaf blade terminology, sampling and preparative
techniques, and illustrations, see Metcalfe (1960), Clifford and Watson
(1967) and Watson and Dallwitz (1988). 
#411. Smith (1968), Smouter and Simpson (1989), and original observations. 
#413. Data from Harborne and Williams (1976). 
#414. Data from Prendergast (1987). 
#415. Extracts for raising rabbit antisera and for testing (supposedly
representing diffusible antigens) consisted of 20-minute buffered saline
leachings from pure pollen samples. The antigens consisted of extracts
boiled for 3 minutes. For immunoelectrophoresis, antisera were placed in
the troughs and pollen extracts in the wells, with the homologous reactions
represented on the upper halves of the slides as arranged here. The gels
illustrated were washed in saline and dried, then stained with Coomassie
Blue. Extracts and procedures were all standardized: for details, see
Watson and Knox 1976, Watson 1983. \par{}In the diagram depicting
immunodiffusion tests (Watson and Knox 1976), \i{}Agropyron repens\i0{}
is here referred to \i{}Elytrigia\i0{}, \i{}Danthonia eriantha\i0{} to
\i{}Austrodanthonia\i0{}, and the two \i{}Elymus\i0{} species to
\i{}Leymus\i0{}. \par{}The illustrations of Watsons immunoelectrophoretic
gels (cf. Watson 1983) are labelled with only generic names. The species
used were: \i{}Agrostis tenuis\i0{}, \i{}Bromus inermis\i0{}, \i{}Festuca
rubra\i0{}, \i{}Cortaderia selloana\i0{}, \i{}Cynodon dactylon\i0{},
\i{}Lolium perenne\i0{}, \i{}Paspalum distichum\i0{}, \i{}Phalaris
arundinacea\i0{}, \i{}Poa pratensis\i0{}, \i{}Saccharum officinarum\i0{},
\i{}Secale cereale\i0{}, \i{}Sorghum halepense\i0{}, \i{}Zea mais\i0{}. 
#416. Comparative data, displayable as illustrations of this character,
consist of tables from Yeoh, Badger and Watson (1980 and 1981). 
#472. Data from Lve 1984. 
#473. Data mainly from Tsvelev (1976). The Avdulov reference has proved
elusive. 
#475. Data mainly from Bennett and Smith (1976) and Bennett \i{}et al\i0{}.
(1982). 
#476. Data exclusively from Brown and Emery (1957). 
#477. Subfamilies updated from Watson \i{}et al\i0{}. (1985). A complete
classification of the family, with short group descriptions, is also
provided. 
#478. Supertribes updated from Watson \i{}et al\i0{}. (1985), with name
endings changed. A complete classification of the family, with short group
descriptions, is also provided. 
#479-486. A complete classification of the family, with short group
descriptions, is also provided. 
#492. This text character has been comprehensively recorded, and
incorporates colloquial summaries of natural distribution, cf. Williss
Dictionary. 
#493. Comprehensively encoded, and intended only for use in identification
and for generating useful geographic subsets of the data. Assignments to
these pragmatically defined world regions are intended to reflect
likelihood of the family being encountered in the field, regardless of
floristic status. 
#494-503:505-510. The phytogeographical Kingdoms, Subkingdoms, Regions and
Subregions are those of Takhtajan (1969). The data, which are complete,
were provided by B.K.Simon (1987). They are intended to reflect natural
distributions, insofar as these are determinable. 
#512. Hydrophytes: plants normally living with the vegetative parts
submerged or floating in water, or only partially emergent.
\par{}Helophytes: marsh plants. \par{}Mesophytes: plants avoiding
extremes of moisture and drought \emdash{} in habitats intermediate between
those of hydrophytes and xerophytes. \par{}Xerophytes: plants which
normally subsist with relatively little moisture (usually exhibiting one or
more recognisable xeromorphic features, which include extreme hairiness,
thick cuticles, rolled or pungent or reduced leaves, etc.). 
#516-522. The species lists are obviously not comprehensive: they are
intended merely to exemplify economic importance. It should also be
realised that the same species may have positive or negative economic
significance, depending on circumstances in different regions. 
#524. Data from Cummins (1971), his classification amended by D.B.O. Savile
(1975, \i{}pers. comm\i0{}.). Updating beyond Cummins confined as yet to
grass nomenclature. Unnamed species of \i{}Agropyron\i0{}, \i{}Elymus\i0{},
\i{}Panicum\i0{} etc. ignored. 
#531. Data not yet updated from Watson 1972. \i{}Panicum\i0{},
\i{}Danthonia\i0{}, \i{}Agropyron\i0{}, \i{}Elymus\i0{}, etc., omitted
pending nomenclatural checking of records. 
#534. Articles of special interest listed here have only rarely provided
most of the morphological descriptive data. The latter reflect compilations
from the sources listed in the References, plus original observations by
Watson and associates (notably S.G. Aiken, H.T. Clifford, C.R. Frylink,
G.E. Gibbs Russell, T.D. Macfarlane and C.M Weiller). 
#535. This project denotes original leaf anatomical observations by
Watson, or for Pooideae by Macfarlane (1979) subsequently supplemented by
Watson. Taxonomic realignments have been pursued in detail and accounted
for when quoting Metcalfe (1960). The species recorded anatomically by us
are listed in the file sample.doc which accompanies this package. 
#539. No information is recorded against this character; it is a
placeholder for links to the illustrations in HTML descriptions. 
