434 pittier: origin of chicle 



were identical, the opinion was divided, one of the men explain- 

 ing that there were several kinds {varias clases) of nisperos, 

 two of which were bled for the milk. These two grew wild in 

 the forest but the one cultivated near the houses for the fruit 

 was never tapped, nor used as timber. Of the former two, one 

 is met with on the valley flats and is better than the other, which 

 always grows on hills. On my asking in what the difference 

 consisted, I was told that the milk of the tree growing in lower 

 exposures needed one boiling only, while the other required two. 

 Just here, let me state that I know nothing about the technique 

 of the raw chicle preparation, and the expedition in question 

 was such a hurried one that I had no time to go deeper into the 

 subject than to obtain from other persons full confirmation of the 

 above data. 



Further information tends to verify the above and to show 

 that chicle is really the product of several species, belonging 

 possibly to more than one genus, of the Sapotaceae. From 

 notes taken by G. N. Collins in his expedition to Yucatan and 

 Tabasco in 1913, it appears that there are differences in the chicle- 

 producing trees, both in the leaf and fruit characters and in the 

 quality of the gum. The trees growing above the 300-meter 

 contour line, although similar in every other way to those grow- 

 ing at lower altitudes, do not produce latex. We have seen that 

 in the Motagua Valley, the latex of trees on the hills is some- 

 what different from that of trees on the flats. Mr. Collins gives 

 also the information that the average yield is 9 pounds per tree, 

 and reaches up to 25 pounds. To show the importance of the 

 product, we may add here that Mr. Collins' informant exported 

 three million pounds of the gum during 191 2. 



Another tree having a floral structure identical with that found in 

 Guatemala, and also described below, was discovered in the cal- 

 careous zone of the Chagres Valley in Panama. If we admit 

 that both species really belong to Achras, it becomes out of the 

 question to continue considering this genus as monotypic, and 

 since it is now increased to three members, there is no reason 

 why other species having so far escaped botanical collectors, 



