39° 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 



[December i, 1S83. 



REPORT ON THE CINCHONA TLANTATIONS OF 

 THE NILGIKIS. 



Peiadeuiya, 30th June 1883. 

 From Dr. II. Trimem, 



Director, Royal Botanical Gardens, Ceylon, 



To the SliCKETART TO GoVEENMENT, 



linvenue Department. 



Sir, — I have the honor to forward to you my re- 

 port on the Cinchona Plantatious of the Nilgiris, which 

 I have divided into two portions. 



Part I. — Botanical Observations. 



1. — In accordance with tlie invitation conveyed to me 

 on 10th April that I would " inspect and report upon 

 the Botanical problems presented by the Nilgiri Cinchona 

 Plantatious," I proceeded, with the sanction of this Gov- 

 erument, to Madras, and reached Ootacamund on May 

 6th. During the succeeding fortnight I investigated the 

 plantations at Dodabetta, Naibnatani and the Pykara 

 river. Throughout the examination I was so fortunate 

 as to have the Company of Dr. Bidie — who has an in- 

 timate knowledge of the plantations— and of my old 

 friend, Mr. LawBon, who has lately been appointed Super- 

 intendent of them ;* at Naduvatam we were joined by 

 Major Campbell Walker, Conservator of Forests; Mr. 

 CJass, Deputy Conservator of Forests, under whose charge 

 the plantations actually were ; and Mr. Lome Campbell, 

 a member of the Cinchona Committee of 1878. 



2. r,-ei'iov.s Preparation.— \u addition to a somewhat 

 critical study of cinchona made during my connection with 

 the British Bluseum, and the facilities I have since en- 

 joyed in Ceylon from an acqu.aintauce with the cultiv- 

 ated kinds, I may add that during a visit home last 

 year, I took the opportimity of renewing my acquaint- 

 ance with the dried collections, both at Kew and the 

 British Museum. At the former establishment, I paid 

 special attention to the original specimens sent liome 

 from the Andes by Spruce and Cross and to Colonel 

 Beddome's and Mr. Bidie's recently received series from 

 these plantations ; whilst at the Museum I re-examined 

 chiefly the original type-specimens of Pavon, and a fine 

 numbered set collected in the Nilgiri plantations them- 

 selves by the late Mr. Mclvor in 1S73, and presented by 

 the Secretary of State for India. 



3. Botany of Cinchona in General.— So many persons 

 have reported upon the botany of the trees under re- 

 view that they possess quite a small literature of their 

 own, and it might be supposed that the subject was 

 thoroughly exhausted. In past times Mr. Markham, the 

 late Mr. Mclvor, Bud especially Blr. Howard, and more 

 recently Colonel Boddome, Mr. Cross, and Dr. Bidie 

 have paid particular attention to the troublesome ques- 

 tions connected with the nomenclature of the several 

 kinds. With regard to some of these writers, I trust I am in 

 no way forgetful of the many and great services that 

 they have rendered to the cinchona enterprise when I 

 feel bound to say that from the botanical point of view, 

 I think it is much to be regretted that circum.stanees 

 should have thrown this veiy difficult genus into the 

 hands of tho.se who have had so little of the requisite 

 training and experience in systematic botany for dealing 

 with it effectively. It ought indeed to be generally 

 understood, that however eminent a writer may be as a 

 quinologist, a traveller, or a gardener, if he can see im- 

 portant botanical characters in the height of a tree, the 

 chemical cimstitution of its bjirk, or the colour of its 

 leaves, he is ipso facto disqualified to pronounce on ques- 

 tions of classification. A number of published names have, 

 however, been defined by nothing more than some such 

 botanically trifling or variable distinctions, and should not 

 be recognized until properly characterized. There is no- 

 thing about the genus cinchona in its botanical aspects to 

 w.arrant it being treated on any principles different from 

 those which the .systematist is ordinarilv aecustomed to 

 employ -. for authors who Iniow little of those principles 

 or have had no expeiience in the application of them to 

 other groups of plants to attempt to arrange the forms 

 of so involved and complicated a genus as this, can only 

 lead to failure and confusion. 



It may be said that botanists themselves disagree largely 



« At the time of my visit, Mr. Lawsou had not been 

 ((otually placed in charge. 



on sucli points : their dift'crenees, iiowever, appear greater 

 than they really are. There is rarely any serious 

 disageement as to the relative value of characters, though 

 there is much as to the graile which the individuals or 

 groups defined by them should occupy. Thus a group 

 which one naturalist will consider as a single species with 

 several varieties will be four or five species to another ; 

 or a small set of allied species or a single isolated one' 

 may be regarded as a distinct genus by one botanist, 

 and be relegated to some larger one by another. Such 

 differences there must always be, for they represent the 

 more or less synthetical or analytical bent of individual 

 minds, but naturaHsts have long left off discussions over 

 such matters, which, indeed, since the general recogni- 

 tion of afhnity by descent, have lost entirely the signific- 

 ance they once had. 



We possess, however, arrangements of the whole known 

 species of cinchona — worked out simultaneously but quite 

 independently — at tho hands of two eminent botanists 

 both familar with South America and the wild trees, the 

 late M. Weddell of Paris and M. Triana of New Granada * 

 and it is to these works and especially to that of M. Triana 

 that we have to go in the endeavour to find sound views 

 as to the limits of the species (which are nearly all of 

 extreme variability) and their correct nomenclature. Un- 

 fortunately in neither treatise are descriptions given • I 

 venture to think that had M. Triana attempted to accur- 

 ately define his thirty-six species he would have con- 

 siderably reduced their number. Too many are still little 

 more than varieties of &it/7is distinguishable by the col- 

 lectors or by merchants', and do not represent playits v/ith 

 such a condjination of anatomical characteristics as is ne- 

 cessary to constitute a recognizable species. 



4. Tlie kinds in cultivation in the J^^il(/ins. — The now 

 well-known etory of the successive importation of different 

 sorts of cinchona from South America to the Nilgiris is 

 told in official detail in the five blue-books (issued from 

 1863 to 1877) so far as to the middle of 1875, and has 

 been briefly summarized in Major Campbell Walker's ex- 

 cellent report of 1878. It is much to be regretted that 

 the late Superintendent's reports are so meagre in detail 

 as to render it impossible from them, to trace with any 

 minuteness the history of the kinds which thus came 

 under his charge. The latest to which I have access is 

 dated 31st July 1875t and professes to give the botanical 

 names and numbers of the pLants of each " species " 

 then cultivated. I need say nothing here about the nittn- 

 hers given ; they have been since shown to be exagger- 

 ated to an almost incredible extent ; but as to the names, 

 the twelve kinds given were no doubt generally at that 

 time distingiushed iu the plantations. 



1. C. .succirubra ... ... Red bark. 



2. C. Oalisaya. 



Do. var. frutex ... Yellow bark. 

 Do. var. vera ... do. 



3. 0. oiiicuialis. 



Do. var. Oondaminea.. Original Loxa bark. 

 Do. var. Bouplandiana Select Crown bark. 

 Do. var. crispa ... Fine Crown bark. 



4. 0. lancifolia ... ... Pitayo bark. 



5. C. nitida ... .-. Genuine grey bark. 



6. O. species without name ... Fine grey bark. 



7. C. micrantha ... ... Grey bark. 



8. C. peruviana ... ... F'inesl; grey bark. 



9. 0. Pahudiana. 



10. C. lanceolata-leaved variety of C. officinalis. 



11. 0. Pitayo. Raised from imported seed. 



12. Do. Plants brought out by Dr. Simpson. 

 The nomenclature of the first nine kinds dates from 



Mr. Mclvor's first report, Klst May 1862, but some changes 

 had been made since that date. At that time " C. oflicin- 

 alis " was collectively called " C. condaminea " and tho 

 three varieties were respectively " var. Uritusinga," *' var. 

 Chahuarguera " and " var. Orespijla." No. 4 was then 

 said to afford ' Crown bark ' (not Pitayo bark) and No. 

 9 at first went under the Dame of " 0. lucumajfolia " 

 of the Dutch. 



* H. A. Weddell, Notes sur les Quinquinas; iu Ann. des 

 Sc. Nat., Botainque, ser. 5, XI, page 346, and XII, page 24 

 (1869). J. Triana, Nouvelles Etudes sur les Quinquinas, Paris, 

 1870 [1872]. 



t Blue Book Y, page 189. 



