48 
of the Systema Nature, call C. officinalis? Vah\ maintains that 
it was his C. macrecarpa* from the kingdom of New Granada, 
which he received from Ortega. But since C. macrocarpa, Vahl 
is nothing else but eur white large-flowered Cmchona of Santa 
Fe, C. evalifolia, Mut.; and as, according to M. Mutis’s own 
testimony, it had never been seen by Linnzeus, then the C. ma- 
erocarpa, Vahl cannot be quoted as synonymous with C. effici- 
nalis, Linn. Syst. Nat. ed. 12. The great botanist of Copenha- 
gen, whose early death is so justly deplored by all the friends 
of science, was misled to an erroneous synonymy in the follow- 
ing manner: 1°. He knew that Linnzeus had at a later period 
founded his description of C. officinalis on specimens which he 
received from Santa Fe; and 2°. he erroneousiy. presupposed 
that all the Cinchena forests in the neighbourhood of Santa Fe, 
discovered by M. Mutis, consisted of white Cinchona, or C. ma- 
crocarpé. : 
Linnzus united, as already ‘niles two quite different 
plants under the denomination of C. officinalis. The dried spe- 
cimen of which he made use for establishing the diagnosis, 
‘was (as M. Mutis has repeatedly and orally assured me) yellow 
Cinchouss C. cordifolia, Mut., and the same species which Vahl 
calls C. pubescens, but of which one variety has. entirely smooth 
leaves, folia utrinque glabra. Linneus quotes as synonymous 
the species described by Condamine in the Mem. de U Academie, 
1738: he consequently united one species from Santa Fe with 
another which grows exclusively in the neighbourhood of Loxa. 
Ruiz, in his Quinologia,+ calls a species C. officinalis, which 
he afterwards describés in the Flor. Peruv. by the name of _ 
iad He —— at the time, aot. Lod tree, —_ = 
Pt te A " £36539 
* Act. Havn. I. p. 19. Lambe P- 22, 
+ Cascarilla officinal, Quinolog, Arct, II, p. 56, 
