( 469 ) 
A Percutiar Group or SOLANACEAE. 
Since the printing of the preceding signatures, I have learned that 
Mr. Bang’s zo. 1270 was a mixture of two species. One of these is 
said by Dammer (Bot. Jahrb. 37:639. 1906) to be Brachistus 
tetrandrus (Br. & Bouché) B. & H., a plant that I do not know. 
The other agrees exactly with the figure of Ruiz & Pavon of their 
Solanum anceps. It is the same as Rusby 766 and Bang 2513 
and 2526. This species I transferred (Bull. Torrey Club 26: 197) 
to the genus Bassovia. No one with a modern knowledge of the 
genera of Solanznae could regard this plant as a Solanum. In 
general habit, anthotaxy, calyx, corolla and fruit, it is a perfect 
Bassovia. Its stamens show a partial tendency to be separate as in 
Bassovia, but they end in pores, and these pores are exceptionally 
large and conspicuous, and of peculiar appearance, and are con- 
tinued into sutures, as in Cyphomandra. e anthers, moreover, 
are somewhat enlarged upward. These characters would exclude 
the plant from every genus except Solanum and Cyphomandra, 
and the latter is outside of consideration here. 
n page 420 of this paper, I have described ‘+ Solanum (?) 
bassovitcarpum,” and have said that I placed it in Solanum with 
reluctance. A comparison shows it to have exactly the same 
anther-characters as those of S. anceps. 
In Bull. Torrey Club 26: 194, I have described ‘+ S. psédézfol- 
zum.” When Dr. Britton first received this plant, he called it 
“‘Bassovia Rusbyz” (MS.), but I could not admit it to that genus, 
because of its anther-characters, now seen to be the same as those 
of the plants above discussed. My ‘+S. Lindent?” (Mem. Torrey 
Club 6:88) is so close to the last-named that it may be only a 
variety of it. My ‘+S. clavatum” (i. c. 87) has the same anthers, as 
has “+.S. brevipedunculatum” (ante, page 421). There are other 
peculiarities in which all the plants above named agree. They 
have scorpioid pseudo-racemes, the rachis nodose with the pedicel- 
bases of the fallen flowers. However different the foliage of the 
species, there is also a similarity, indescribable perhaps, but be- 
speaking relationship. There is a very strong similarity between 
these plants and the genus Bassovza, and one is inclined to regard 
them as forming a section of that genus, but the striking anther- 
characters appear to forbid this course. The other course is to 
regard them as forming a distinct genus. This is probably what I 
