Mr. J. Miers on the genus Saracha. 443 



J. Hookei* (Br. Fl. ed. 5. 273) states that he is satisfied that 

 " the S. caspica of Willdenow is the same as " the /S. reticulata 

 of Smith. I have now before me an extensive series of specimens 

 of the European forms of ^S^. caspica, viz. of the S. dichotoma of 

 Duby, S. hellidifolia of DeCandolle, and S. caspica of Reichen- 

 bach. All of them are unquestionably the same species as our 

 S. reticulata from Norfolk^ indeed I do not find that they differ 

 in any respect. In none of them are the leaves at all retuse, as 

 seems sometimes to be the case with the Taurian plant described 

 by Bieberstein^ and originally called S. reticulata by him, but 

 afterwards identified with the S. caspica of Willdenow, the Lin- 

 nsean synonym being excluded. Can it be that the falsely retuse 

 appearance occasionally put on by the leaves, as noticed in the 

 above description of our plant, has deceived him ? 



Having now noticed all our known species of Plumbaginacece, 

 I submit these remarks to the consideration of botanists, in the 

 hope that they will be received with those allowances for their 

 imperfect character which an attempt to elucidate so difficult a 

 tribe of plants seems to require, and that they may lead to a more 

 complete knowledge of this beautiful portion of our flora than we 

 as yet possess. 



St. John's College, Cambridge, Jan. IS, 1849. 



XLV. — Contributions to the Botany of South America. 

 By John Mters, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S. 



[Continued from p. 269.] 



Saracha. 



To this genus of the ' Flora Peruviana ' I have to contribute 

 several new species. In the Prodromus of that work, p. 31, 

 tab. 34, in order to illustrate the character of Saracha, its distin- 

 guished authors selected the plant which on a former occasion 

 (Lond. Journ. Bot. 7. 353) I proposed to detach from that ge- 

 nus, because, as it differed essentially in structure and in habit 

 from all the other species enumerated by them, it could not be 

 regarded as its type. I preferred therefore to exclude that plant 

 and retain the genus for the other several well-recognized and 

 long-established species, as it would produce much confusion and 

 answer no good purpose to make any change in their pi'esent 

 arrangement. I now proceed accordingly to modify the generic 

 character in the following manner, so as to include all the species 

 below enumerated. Before doing this I will offer a few remarks in 

 regard to the limits of this genus with respect to Physalis, Witha- 



