300 
P. macrophysa Rydberg, P. versicolor Rydberg and P. ciltosa and 
Chamaesaracha crenata, to be described below. 
The limitation of the species here recognized, differs also from 
that of Dr. Gray. If he had treated Physalis as he did Aster, he 
would have had several more species and would not have united 
into one such as were rightly kept apart by Dunal. In a genus 
where the species are as closely related as they are in P/ysalts itis 
not easy to define the limits, especially as intermediate forms 
in most cases are found. I must confess that I am far from satis- 
fied with my own treatment of P. Philadelphica and P. heterophylla. 
I suspect that each consists of more than one species, but I have 
been unable to find constant characters that would support a 
distinction. 
In preparing a monograph of these genera,* I have naturally to 
consider the nomenclature of the species. I knew that it was not 
in the very best condition, but never imagined that it was in such 
chaos as [ really found it. The following will show the most 
important cases where changes in the commonly accepted 
names are necessary. A practically full synonomy will be found 
under each species, but I feel that something needs to be 
said in the way of explanation. The changes mentioned are 
necessary not merely because the author has tried to follow the 
Rochester and Madison rules. They would have been just as 
necessary under any accepted rule except one, viz : ** Use whatever 
name you please." Most of the the errors are wrong identifica- 
tions of species or misapplication of names. The changes here 
proposed are not hastily made, as I have compared all the species 
with the original descriptions and drawings and also with the type 
specimens when possible. I have had access to all types preserved 
in American herbaria, except one, viz: that of P. lanceolata Ell.,+ 
but that name cannot stand as there is an older and accepted 7. 
lanceolata Michx.{ I have seen the original descriptions of all 
species and varieties, at least in reprint or in manuscript copies, 
and also that of nearly every synonym. 
* The larger part of the following discussion, although under a different title, was 
read before the Botanical Seminar of the University of Nebraska, May 27, 1895. 
FEIL Bot, S. C, 8 1: 48 
+ Michx. Fl. Bor. Am. 1: 149. 1803. 
