The Systematics of Physalis pumila ssp. hispida (Solanaceae)

The common Groundcherry of the sandhills of the Great Plains, formerly considered conspecific with Physalis lanceolata and more recently a variety of P. virginiana or P. longifolia, is shown by morphological and hybridization studies to be conspecific with P. pumila. Because of morphological, ecological, and geographic distinctions, it is treated here as P. pumila ssp. hispida. Chromosome numbers of n = 12 are reported for P. pumila ssp. hispida, P. pumila ssp. pumila, and P. longifolia var. longifolia for the first time. Until recently the common Groundcherry of the dry and sandy parts of the Great Plains was referred to Physalis lanceolata Michaux, a species otherwise occurring in the fall-line sandhills of the southeastern United States. This taxonomic disposition was based on the oblanceolate, thick, entire leaves, the villous calyx, and the inconspicuous spots at the base of the corolla, traits that plants of both geographic regions share (Rydberg, 1896; Fernald, 1950). Waterfall (1958) dismissed the southeastern P. lanceolata as an aberrant hybrid between two other species and treated the Great Plains plant as P. virginiana var. hispida. Noting that the stem pubescence of this Great Plains plant is ascending like that of P. longifolia, whereas that of P. virginiana is reflexed, Steyermark (1963) removed it from P. virginiana and classified it as P. longifolia var. hispida. It was subsequently demonstrated that the southeastern population of P. lanceolata constitutes a good and distinctive species that is not of hybrid origin (Hinton, 1970); however, the status of the Great Plains plants was left in doubt. Gray (1875) was the first to note that this Great Plains sandhill plant, which he referred to as P. lanceolata, resembles P. pumila Nuttall, a species of dry prairies, glades, and disturbed habitats at the eastern edge of the Great Plains from eastern Kansas and western Missouri south to Texas. He treated P. pumila as P. lanceolata var. hirta, Rydberg (1896), also noted the similarity of these taxa but treated P. pumila as distinct from P. lanceolata. The aims of the present study are to clarify the relationships and to determine the proper taxonomic disposition of the Great Plains sandhill plant, which I call P. pumila ssp. hispida.3 Plants of P. pumila ssp. hispida were compared with those of P. pumila ssp. pumila, P. lanceolata, P. vir1 I thank Robert Ornduff for his valuable suggestions. 2 Biology, George Mason University, Fairfax VA 22030. 3 Physalis pumila ssp. hispida (Waterfall) Hinton, comb. nov. Basionym: P. virginiana var. hispida Waterfall, Rhodora 60: 154. 1958. Type: Oklahoma. GREER CO.: Mangum, Waterfall 7308 (OKLA, holotype; OKL, TEX, isotypes). Physalis lanceolata auct. non Michaux. Physalis longifolia var. hispida (Waterfall) Steyermark, Flora of Missouri 1318, 1963. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.254 on Sun, 04 Sep 2016 05:05:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 1976] HINTON: PHYSALIS PUMILA SSP. HISPIDA 189