144, Mr. J. Miers on the genus Witheringia. 
exceeding the size of a peppercorn, and is supported on a small 
persistent and nonaugescent calyx ; it is not one-tenth the size of 
the large oval berry inclosed within its increasing calyx, which is 
seen in Witheringia picta; the positive characters here alluded 
to will be found to approach very closely to Acnistus, and to be 
quite incompatible with the plants of the other group referred to. 
From these several facts the inference is irresistible, that 
Witheringia solanacea should at once be referred to Saracha, and 
that Witheringia macrophylla, W. ciliata, W. mollis, W. rhom- 
boidea, W. dumetorum and W. riparia of Prof. Kunth, together 
with some others, form a distinct group, which I propose to call 
Brachistus, and that the genus Witheringia as defined by L’ He- 
ritier must fall upon that group of plants, of which the Wathe- 
ringia picta, Mart., may be considered the type. These are di- 
stinguished by an inflorescence either solitary or fasciculate in 
each axil or dichotomy of the branches, in which latter cases they 
arise successively at different periods, so that we see in each fas- 
cicle, every gradation of development from the nascent bud to 
the ripened fruit : the peduncle is always 1-flowered, slender and 
drooping in the young flower, but it grows much longer, becomes 
rigidly erect, and is considerably thickened towards the apex, 1 
fruit: the calyx is 5-partite, the corolla has a very short tube, 
and a deeply 5-cleft rotate border, with the stamens arising from 
triangular extensions a little above the base of the tube, as in 
Hebecladus and Saracha : the berry is large, oval, and wholly in- 
cluded within the enlarged calyx, and the form of the embryo of 
its seed is spiral. | 
It may be urged that the name of Saracha should give place 
to that of Witheringia, but such a change would answer no good 
purpose, and could not be effected without great confusion, a 
very unnecessary creation of synonyms, and the annihilation of a 
genus long recognized. The recommendation above suggested 
appears to me the only proper course to pursue, and in adopting 
it, we do not violate the rule of priority, as [7 Heritier’s plant was 
only a cultivated specimen, the place of whose origin is still quite 
unknown ; and as no specimen of it appears to be in existence, 
it is clear that as a species, and especially as the type of a genus, 
it must ever remain problematical : and finally, that as L’Heri- 
tier’s generic character remains in full force, as applied to another 
distinct group, the tribute intended by him to honour the me- 
mory of Withering is thus inviolably preserved. The genus 
Witheringia being thus established, it follows as a necessary con- 
sequence, that the Athenea of Dr. Sendtner must give place to it. 
The following generic character drawn up from my own observa- 
tions will not be found to differ materially from that of the au- 
thor last mentioned. 
