Mr. J. Miers on the genus Saracha. 443 
J. Hooker (Br. Fl. ed. 5. 272) 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. bellidifolia 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- 
nan 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 Plumbaginacee, 
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. 18, 1849. 
XLV.—Contributions to the Botany of South America. 
7 By Joun Miers, 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 present 
arrangement. I now proceed accordingly to modify the generic 
character im the followmg 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- 
