32 
Cumana and of Quina de ta Angostura. . They divided all bark 
into genuine and into spurious, without considering, that, al- 
though true Cinchona barks pessess equal medicinal power, yet 
that they are capable of displaying specific differences im the 
manner of their efficacy. They asked for bark like that of Loxa, 
without considering that three or four kinds of Cinchona bark | 
had ever since 1738 come from Loxa itself to Europe, which were 
the produce of quite different species of Cinchona. They for- 
got that the quality of the bark, did not depend merely on its 
being from the C. lancifolia or from C.macrocarpa, but that 
locality of growth, the age of the tree, quick or slow drying, 
determine its efficacy. They mistook the same species, if the 
bark was, instead of canutillos, i.e. in thin quills, im thick cor- 
tizones, or even powdered. They mixed, sometimes through mis- 
take, sometimes intentionally, the bark of Wintera granadensis 
and of the tanning Weirmannias, with the Cimchona bark, and 
even stained them with an infusion of Brazil wood. 
_ These circumstanees gave rise to very singular prejudices 
in judging of Cinchona bark. © Certain mercantile houses in 
Spain, which half a century since were in possession of the 
exclusive trade in Cinchona bark, endeavoured to throw disrepute 
on that from New Granada and southern Peru. They found com- 
plaisant botanists, who, by boldly exalting varieties to species, 
proved that all Peruvian Cinchone were specifically different from 
those which grow about Santa Fe. Physicians, like the Popes, 
drew lines of demarcation on the map. They insisted, that be- 
yond a certain degree of latitude in the northern hemisphere no 
efficacious Cinchona could grow. But as the commerce with 
Cinchona bark from Huamalies and Huanuco, which Ortega, 
Ruiz, Pavon, and Tafalla recommended, soon fell into the hands 
of those who had formerly carried on the South Sea trade in the 
