310 
3. P. lanceolata Michx. (P. Pennsylvanica lanceolata Gray, Man., 
5th edition). 
4. P. pumila Nutt. (P. lanceolata hirta Gray*). 
5. P. longifolia Nutt.f (P. lanceolata laevigata Gray] ). 
6. P. macrophysa Rydberg.§ 
7. An undescribed Texan species, nearly related to P. longi- 
folia and characterized in this paper. 
In 1827 Dr. Torrey described P. lobatall. Dr. Gray states { 
that Solanum luteiflorum Dunal,** or at least the var. subintegri- 
folium: is the same, but this is a mistake. The description does 
not fit P. /obata at all. There is a poor specimen, without flower 
and fruit, of the variety in the Torrey Herbarium at Columbia 
College, and another at Harvard from the original collection. Al- 
though they resemble somewhat P. /obata in the form of the 
leaves, etc. they may just as well belong to Chamaesaracha, as, for 
instance, a form of C. Coronopus Gray.*f Dunal in De Candolle's 
Prodromus places Solanum luteiflorum next before S. Coronopus, 
which is the same as Chamaesaracha Coronopus Gray. 
In the addenda to the Synoptical Flora, Gray also refers 
Chamaesaracha physaloides Greene $1 to P. lobata, which is another 
mistake. The former is Gray's own Physalis WrigAtz $8 as shown 
by the type, which is only a better developed specimen than 
Gray's. | 
Nuttall describes five new species, viz: P. angustifolia and P. 
Walteri in the Journal of the Academy of Philadelphia,||| and 7* 
pumila, P. longifolia and P. mollis in the Transactions of the Ameri- 
can Philosophical Society. P. angustifolia and mollis are known 
under their respective names. P. Walteri is is P. viscosa a LAT as as 
` # Proc. Am. Acad. 10: 68. : 187 
+ Trans. Am. Phil. Soc.(IL) 5: 193. 1833-37. 
1 Proc. Am. Acad. 10: 68. 1874. 
§ Bull. Torr. Club, 22: 308. 1895. 
11 Bull. Torr. Club, 9: 122. 1882. 
$8 Proc. Am. Acad. 10: 63. 1874. 
|] 7: 112-113. 1834, 
T5: 193-4. 1833-37. 
