907 
tothe right species. Had he referred it to a broad-leaved and 
hairy form of P. lanceolata Michx., as he understood the same, he 
would have done the right thing. But evidently Dr. Gray had 
never seen this form exactly like the figure in Miller's Illustra- 
tions, plate 206. f. r. As far as I can remember, there are no 
specimens of it in the Gray Herbarium. I have had for study all 
the important collections of Physalis in the United States. In all, 
it is represented by specimens from only a dozen localities and all 
collected since 1886. It is, therefore, easy to find an excuse for 
Dr. Gray's erroneous application of the name P. Virginiana. All 
forms of P. Virginiana Miller or P. lanceolata Gray* have a thick 
more or less fleshy and erect caudex, while P. heterophylla Nees (P. 
Virginiana Gray) generally has a slender creeping rootstock. As 
far as the size and color of the corolla is concerned there is no con- 
stant difference between them, both being very variable. The only 
character not agreeing with P. lanceolata Gray, as described in the 
Synoptical Flora, is the color of the fruit, but this varies in several 
Species, and why not in this also. P, lanceolata Gray will there- 
fore become P. Virginiana Miller. It represents the most common 
form of that species. 
Physalis Philadelphica + is not very well understood. In our 
herbaria we find specimens under this name that belong to widely 
distinct species, viz: forms of P. angulata L.,and of P. aequata Jacq.,+ 
fruiting specimens of P. Alkekengi of P. Virginiana Mill and 
even of P. Carpenteri.§ As I understand P. Philadelphica Lam., 
it is a species nearly related to P. longifolia Nutt., || but with 
broader leaves. It is as often perennial as annual (the original 
description says annual), but is the only species of the eastern 
United States that fits the description of P. Philadelphica at all, 
except P. aequata Jacq., which, however, is not a native, but re- 
cently introduced. In describing P. longifolia, Nuttall states that 
it is nearly related to P. chenopodifolia. Evidently he meant 
P. chenopodi ifolia of Willdenow, * and not that of Lamarck.* 7 
* Gray, Proc. Am. Acad. 10: 67. 1874. 
+ Lam. Encycl. 2: ror, 1786. j 
+ Nees in dëng 6: 470. 1831. 
& See be 
| Trans. pes Phil. Soc. IL, 5:193. 1833-37: 
T Willd. Sp. Pl. 1: 1023. 1798. 
** Lam. Ill. 2: 28. 1793. 
