Isn’t night shade poisionous? Or are there several types?

debra

There are many species of Solanum. ‘Nightshade’ doesn’t refer to a specific one. Even though some produce food crops, eg potato, tomato, it’s safest to assume all are toxic to some degree.

From a distance, we had wondered if a pepper or tomato had self seeded (with the help of a chipmunk or bird - the thieves ...), but looking more closely (as in actually walking over to it), it's obviously not. Hence, I came here to find out what it is (and referred to it as a weed). I have no intention of eating it ... if the chipmunks or bunnies choose to, that's their problem.

It doesn't have thorns (thorns get most things evicted here), and it's competing with mint (another sign it was likely a weed), so it's not a big problem for it to stay a bit. Maybe I'll let it flower, so we can narrow down what it is a bit more. Solanum, afterall, isn't very specific.

So I'm thinking Physalis spp. ...

There's a firm berry inside the husk. Peeking inside, it's green, but clearly unripe.

(Nubby leaves are still the mint ... ignore them.)

Physalis longifolia?

Going by the leaves and flowers, perhaps Physalis peruviana.

Aw, pity it's not the native one.

Physalis heterophylla!

Are the leaves not too regularly shaped for P. heterophylla? I'll take some more pictures in the morning ...

Yeh, those phylla aren’t hetero.

The leaves are heterophylla!

Only because they've been chewed around the edges by something.

Physalis species have variable leaves and some of them can have smooth margins or lobed margins. Solanum nigra is a good example of polymorphism and the same holds true for Physalis species. There are 3 possible species that could be this plant. Physalis pubescens is the 3rd contender. Physalis peruviana has wider leaves than this plant, and it's unlikely it could find it's way into a yard being a perennial that is hardy only in zone 8 or higher. There are about 5 observations for peruviana, and they all are for plants being cultivated. There are several observations for heterophylla and pubescens. They are all so similar and they would need to be keyed by the OP to get an exact ID. I haven't located any ways to differentiate them by sight. My calling it heterophylla was premature because I wasn't considering P. pubescens. So it has to be one of these 3 species, heterophylla, pubescens, peruviana. I've ruled out peruviana myself but it should still be considered though it's very unlikely. If anyone has more insight about this genus I'd love to hear it.

Keyed?

Here's the promised additional pictures:

Leaves:

(If you look at the center leaf that's curling up slightly, you can see the texture pretty well.)

Flowers and Fruit:

This is the first year that this has appeared, so I don't think any assumptions can be made vis-à-vis its status as a perennial or annual. It's probably safe to assume that this plant was planted by either a bird perched on the eaves of the house (that's the foundation in the first picture) or a chipmunk (they live nearby run through this space all the time ... and steal our tomatoes ... grrr).

I grew Physalis peruviana here one year. It is treated as an annual. If a neighbour grew it, or ate the fruit (Cape Gooseberry) and discarded the seeds in the garden it's not impossible the seeds got into the environment. I am by no means saying that is what it is, just that being a non-native tender perennial, doesn't entirely eliminate it.

By which I think you mean Houzz picked ... I think I actually picked now? Maybe?

Pubescence is soft and short with no stickiness, similar to the mint; I believe it would be called silky or sericeous botanically. It is antrorse on the leaves ... hard to say on the stems, as it's more or less straight out due to the short length. Leaves are entire and acute to acuminate at their apices, appoximately ovate bordering on lanceolate in the narrower leaves. Calyxes are indented at the base and longer than wide, coming to slightly splayed point at the tip.

P. herterophylla is supposed to be viscid ... I wouldn't describe this plant as having any secretions. So not-so-clammy ...

No sticky ... just hairy.

So problems with each potential species ...

P. heterophylla - not sticky

P. lanceolata - has prominant spots in flower

P. longifolia - calyx is indented

P. peruviana - calyx is elongated

P. pubescens - leaves not dentate, not sticky

P. virginiana - hairs go the wrong way

Did I miss one that should be on the list? If not, which of these differences is an accepted variation?

What?👀🙃🐵

Mmmm ... I only have quickbread today ...

"Is it sticky at all when you squeeze the stem?"

No, no stickiness or residue from rubbing or squeezing.

It's only the outside of the berry that is sticky, not the stems or leaves. 😏😒😂

I'm just reading the key you posted ... "15 Pubescence viscid, generally composed of glandular trichomes mixed with fine, short hairs and long, multicellular hairs; leaf blades broadly ovate to suborbicular, the base rounded, truncate, or cordate occasionally widely cuneate) ... Physalis hererophylla"

I read glandular trichomes which sounds like they are what's sticky, but they aren't. Probably because Cannabis trichomes are sticky, resiny( if that's a word.) I seem to remember store bought tomatillos having some stickiness too, unless I was hallucinating? Or off my meds? 🤔😂🤣

The key word is viscid. Viscid is defined as glutinous or sticky. There is no other definition for the word.

Yes, tomatillos do have a sticky texture to their berry; the berry is coated in a sucrose ester. I can't say I remember whether the tomatillo plant is hairy or viscid, though Kew Gardens says Physalis philadelphica can be sparsely pubescent and that the hairs can be either glandular or eglandular. Likewise, Physalis ixocarpa, if you prefer, has little to no pubescence, but if present, it is described as glandular.

Kew Gardens doesn't give detailed description of P. heterophylla, unfortunately. P. pubescens is described as have glandular-viscid pubescent branches and leaves, though the fruit is only described as capitate-glandular without specifying whether it is viscid. P. peruviana calls out eglandular hairs though with no mention of the fruit being viscid or not.

Side note: they have a lot of species listed, though it seems half are synonyms or lack descriptions there.

Kew Gardens - Physalis

To be specific, I said (now that I've located what you're talking about (and I'm not sure how pulling sources that agreed with both sides of the argument was ganging up on someone, though I apologize if you feel that I was attacking you)):

"The exact taxonomy and botany is really beyond what most take away from this forum ... I mean, if this were my question, I'd have been pretty happy with knowing the plant was a currant and whether it is R. aureumor R. odoratum and whether those were the same or not is a bit over my head ... that being said, I do enjoy my rabbit holes of research, so ... [...] No idea which sources are most reliable of those, as they all seem decent enough to me for things found on the internet. Honestly, taxonomists and botanists seem to reclassify things constantly, so maybe they're all outdated ... but since we're already down the rabbit hole, we may as well have some cake."

You gave me a rabbit hole to follow when you said I could identify it by keying it, so call me Alice! You even brought cake ...

It's true that I was happy with 'husk tomato' ... in which case, I guess we could stop at my 'Physalis spp.' though I attempted to guess a species, with something that appears to be flawed based on keying, and that's when we went down the rabbit hole, arriving where we are now.

Well, at least the cake is still here ...

Perhaps this is what happens after a little calming reflection or some deep breathing exercises.

Physalis heterophylla var. clavipes

To show what difference knowing the variety can make this is Physalis heterophylla var. heterophylla.

So var. clavipes is a accepted form that is non-viscid? I'm struggling to find descriptions of it that separate it from other varieties or don't redirect to var. heterophylla. Pictures, which while applicable for comparison in form don't really give me a hint of whether it's sticky.

I did find this:

Which discusses how a variety (dubbed here var. umbrosa, if it can be deemed a variety) can have reduced viscidity when growing in shade, though my plant is not. It's tangled in the fringes of a mint on the east of my house, but the mint does not shade this plant.

This source also references another variety(?) that it describes as scarcely viscid, P. heterophylla ambigua, though it's toothed, so not the right variety.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43391911 (For those interested in flipping through that source)

The different varieties are distinguished from each other by leaf shape and thickness. I have no idea about whether they're viscid or non-viscid, in sun or shade. Ambigua and heterophylla have large dentation, ambigua has thin leaves, heterophylla has thick leaves. Clavipes and nyctaganea have smooth margins with sparse tooth-like dentation, clavipes has thick leaves, nyctaginea has thin leaves.

How can I tell whether it has thin or thick leaves without a side by side comparison? Can I compare with a tomato or pepper plant? (I don't have another Physalis to compare with, so those would be the closest I have being Solanums.)

I don't think they list caliper measurements so you just have to eyeball it and decide. I eyeballed it and they look thick to me, but if you eyeball it and think they're thin than it's the other variety nyctaganea? I've seen several Physalis species and the leaves on your plant look on the thick side to me.🤷‍♂️ I have several years of first hand experience with multiple Physalis species and extensive knowledge from my 30 + years in my Physalis landscaping business. 😬

I haven't grown tomatillos for over a decade, so I don't really have much reference for thick or thin.

I know I said I wasn't going to eat it, and I still don't really intend to, but are the RIPE fruits of Physalis spp. ALL edible? I know the rest of the plant is toxic, of course.

Physalis heterophylla has edible fruit, but all the other parts of the plant are poisonous. Some Physalis species have edible fruits and some don't. You would need to research whatever species you were thinking of eating. I grew Physalis peruviana years ago, but they grew big and were not getting close to flowering, so I pulled them out before they had flowers and fruits. I suspected they needed a longer growing season than I had here. That was around the time that I decided to stop growing vegetables. I also grew Chinese Lanterns and I didn't keep them for more than a couple years, because I was afraid they would take over the garden, but they would have made it a lot easier for me to garden at night so I could see what I was doing.

Well, the plant matured some berries (green, brown husks, did not fall off, slight tackiness on mature fruit, no tackiness on younger fruit). I ripped it up (it was likely going to get raked out anyways ... I just decided to find out what its root system was).

The root broke as I pulled out from the tangle of mint runners. I dug out another piece of it, but I couldn't find the rest (just several mint runners to stuff back in the ground).

This looks like a taproot to me, which would make it an annual rather than a rhizomatous perennial ... Am I wrong about the root? or is this definitively Physalis pubescens?

https://gobotany.nativeplanttrust.org/dkey/physalis/#c3

Here's a better picture of the root pieces ...

Physalis heterophylla does make a taproot, and it is perennial. All plants with taproots aren't always annuals. I got a second opinion from botanical genius/polymath/ Solanaceae expert Aidan Campos.😏😁

https://anps.org/2018/07/24/know-your-natives-clammy-groundcherry/

Guess that's what I get for believing the internet ... I thought this meant that it would either have taproot and be an annual or have rhizomes and be a perennial ...

Echium vulgare comes to mind. It's perennial with a large taproot.

I meant in terms of Physalis. A dandelion is a taprooted perennial, too.