Diagnostic botanical features shown in these two photographs. Please refer to the Flora of Vic. online VicFlora (and secondarily the Flora of NSW online PlantNet) .
More details articulated on request? . :
Eg. inflorescence/infructesence has typical finer structural details of *L. longitudinale*, including much longer than *L. laterale* (except when it's in extremis); yet combined with the extensively rhizomatous habit shown here, not so tussock forming at all here;
combined with much taller (longer leaves and culms) than *L. laterale* (usually, except when it's in extremis eg. *L. laterale majus which has tussock habit form);
and the full resolution original photographs show the culms have pith inferred–evidenced by their visible biconvex shaped outsides ie. cross–sections ;
Hey Jason, yep I saw your comments when first posted. Appreciate the ID and diagnostic notes. I wasn’t certain about this one when i uploaded it, hence my suggestion only.
As you may know, in generalisation, Au Cyperaceae 'sedges and some of the rushes' botanical family species are harder to identify in first hand on site field botany, than even some Poaceae grasses botanical family species (not to really compare to much easier to ID common ground layer herbaceous species eg. *Eryngium ovinum*).
And Au Cyperaceae 'sedges and some of the rushes' botanical family species, even more difficult to confirm the identification by merely photographs – sometimes not enough evidence for any possibility of species ID and sometimes only from many years of experience and time consuming hunting close up all through the full resolution photographs for species diagnostic, confirming, features (as here) .