No need to use Alternatives to construct alternative string patterns?

I am trying to match a list of strings with a pattern, in which there are several possibilities for the characters to be matched. To me, the following looks the most natural way:

 StringMatchQ[{"12", "23", "34", "45"}, ___ ~~ Alternatives @@ {"1", "4"} ~~ ___] 

what returns as expected:

{True, False, True, True}

However, I've found out the following does work too (and it's faster when the list is very large):

StringMatchQ[{"12", "23", "34", "45"}, ___ ~~ {"1", "4"} ~~ ___] 

{True, False, True, True}

Why does this work? Why are we able to specify the different possibilities with a list instead of with Alternatives?.

I have also found out we do not even need to evaluate Alternatives properly, the following does work as well:

 StringMatchQ[{"12", "23", "34", "45"}, ___ ~~ Alternatives @ {"1", "4"} ~~ ___] 

{True, False, True, True}

even though the head of List is not replaced:

Alternatives@{"1", "4"} 

what yields the (undefined?) symbolic expression:

Alternatives[{"1", "4"}]

Why these last two ways work and where is it documented?