Plants perennial; with extensive, often deep, horizontal or vertical rhizomes. Culms 50-130 cm, erect, bases usually buried and rooting at the nodes. Leaves cauline; sheaths shorter than the internodes, open, ribbed; ligules membranous, ciliate; auricles absent; blades loosely involute, sometimes scabridulous, apices attenuate. Inflorescences terminal, conical to oblong panicles, open to diffuse, exceeding the upper leaves; branches slender, widely spreading. Pedicels longer than the spikelets, capillary, flexible. Spikelets ovate to obovate, olive-green to brownish, with (1)2-6 florets; sterile florets distal to the bisexual florets; disarticulation above the glumes and below the florets. Glumes unequal, usually exceeded by the florets, glabrous, acute; lower glumes 1-veined; upper glumes 1- or 3-veined; calluses with a tuft of soft hairs; lemmas lanceolate to falcate, glabrous or shortly pubescent, at least on the distal 2/3, 3-veined, lateral veins converging distally, apices acute to awn-tipped, entire or with 3 minute teeth; anthers 3. x = unknown. Named for John Howard Redfield (1815-1895), a Philadelphia businessman associated with the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences.

Redfieldia is a monotypic genus that is endemic to the Flora region.

1.   Redfieldia flexuosa (Thurb. ex A. Gray) Vasey
Blowout-Grass

Culms 50-130 cm. Ligules to 1.5 mm; blades 15-45 cm long, 2-8 mm wide. Panicles 20-50 cm long, 8-25 cm wide. Spikelets (3)5-8 mm long, 3-5 mm wide. Lower glumes 3-4 mm; upper glumes 3.5-4.5 mm; callus hairs to 1.5 mm; lemmas 4.5-6 mm, glabrous or shortly pubescent, veins glabrous, entire or with 3 minute teeth; paleas glabrous; anthers 2-3.6 mm, yellow to reddish-purple; lodicules 2, truncate. Caryopses oblong, terete. 2n = 25.

Redfieldia flexuosa grows on sand hills and dunes. It is a common and important soil binder in blowout areas and has been planted for that purpose beyond its native range. It is only fair livestock forage but, because it grows in areas subject to blowout, this should not be of concern. Kearney and Peebles (1951) cited one specimen from Arizona (Hough 119) and described the species as "very rare" in that state. John Reeder (pers. com.) stated that, despite repeated searching, he had been unable to find the species in Arizona and suggested that the Hough specimen may be mislabeled.