392 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 



[December i, 1883. 



fiitthei" consideration, he pronounced that "pubesceus " 

 WHS the real " 0. succirubra' anJ that the plant, hitherto 

 growu uuJei- that name, was not that species but '-O. 

 micrantha,'" or some other gi'ey bark ! Golouel Beddome, 

 however, coulil recognize varieties only of a single species 

 in " maguifolia " and " pubescens," but this, he thought, 

 quite distinct from both " C. succirubra " and " 0. 

 officinalis." 



AVitb regard to the supposed uumsrous varieties of " 0. 

 officinalis," neither Colonel Beddome nor Mr. Gross could 

 trace them out. The former speaks somewhat doubtfully 

 as to the nature of what passes as " Uritusinga " on 

 DoJabetta, of which he believes there are about 1,000 

 there and about 1^ at Naduvatam. As to " C. calisaya," 

 he could distinguish four varieties, ordinary " Oahsaya," 

 " Ledgeriaua," "anglica" and " javanica." 



A paragraph (45) is devoted by Colonel Beddome to an 

 •• unknown species " with very rough corky bark and 

 leaves hairy on both sides, of which five trees were found 

 on Dodabetta. Mr. Cross at once pronounced this to be 

 "the celebrated " C. crispa " of the Loxa mountains, a 

 packet of the seed of which we collected when collecting 

 the " officiuahs ;" he added tliat it gives a very valuable 

 bark and that he sent the seed to Mr. Mclvor who told 

 him that it never germinated. 



Mr. Cross sent home thirty samples of bark for ana- 

 lysis by Messrs Howard. In his remarks upon No. 18 

 (" Pata de GaUinazo ") Mr. J. E. Howard— who also 

 fnlly accepted Mr. Cross's statements— .says* that it is 

 •' C. coccinea" of Pavon.f and not redbark at all. In 

 abandoning his former view of the hybrid nature of 

 •' pubescens," Mr. Howard merely says it is one of the 

 " cognate species to ' succii-uhra.' "J 



Colonel Beddome collected and dried good typical speci- 

 mens of the IS different kinds of " Cinchona " he could 

 recognize, and these were forwarded to Kew with the 

 object^ especially of the " Pata " (Xo. 2), " pubescens " 

 (Xo. 3) and the " unknown species " (So. 18) being there 

 identified. 



7. My own views ami those of the Kew botanists.— la 

 September of the same year, I had the pleasure of re- 

 ceiving Colonel Beddome dm'ing his short visit to Cey- 

 lon. He found on the estates here abundance of Cross's 

 " Pata," and some of the Nilgui " pubesceus." In 

 his report to Government, dated 3rd October (No. 167), 

 by some strange misapprehension, he quoted me as sup- 

 porting his views as to the nature of these ti-ees. They 

 had, of course, been long familiar to me, but I had 

 always carefully avoided committing myself to a definite 

 opmion about them, though strongly leaning towards the 

 view of then- hybrid origin. I therefore found it ne- 

 cessary to state my position, which I did in a letter to 

 the Cci/loii Obseri-er newspaper, 27th November 1881. I 

 may here be permitted to quote the conclusion of this 

 communication. The name '• robusta " which I pro- 

 posed to adojit was. Colonel Beddome informed me, in 

 use on some estates in South India ; it is now commonly 

 employed in Ceylon for the trees in questi n. 



"I also desire to say a few words as to the name 

 which this cinciiona should bear. It is, I think, much to 

 be regretted that the name " Pata de Galliiiazo" should 

 have been brought out of its obscurity by Mr. Cross and 

 adopted (even provisionally) by Colonel Beddome. Tlii.s 

 is a mere bark-collector's name and is used in different 

 pivts of the Andean chain for at least si.x different kinds 

 of balk. That which has the best claim to it (as having 

 be.i>n tirst published and more often used) is the best 

 sort of grey bark collected by Pritchett in H-aiiucoand 

 rpfm-ed to C. peruvi>nia or C. micrantiia « » * 

 It is, of course, the ca.se that the name is also used for 

 the "Oasc:irilla serrana," or Hill Red Bark, which Dr. 

 . Sp-uc°, ,^ obta ined ou Chimbora zo at 8,500 to 9,000 feet;, 



♦Enclosure in No. 2(i7, (Jufy 1881). 



t Tins was Spruce's determination of the real " Pata " 

 of Chuuborazo see Weddell, " Notes " 1. e. pajc 30). 



I Pharmaceutical Journal, October 1S81, page o)l. 



jj Colonel Beddouifc's report (pagoS) contams the extra- 



ordinary assertion (i\cn\ ed from Mr. Cross ?) that Dr. 



■I'MCc •' could neve, '--ve seen the tretiS." .Bnt the latter 



r ribes their appoiirance, bark and leaves — the flowerand 



ruit h'j did not get — in his papjr in the " Journal of the 



,Liunean Soci..ty." iv., page 185, Indeed, it is Mr Cross's 



si[aie in this matt^v toat is the uoveltv. 



and with which Mr. Cross (who accompanied Dr, Spmc^ 

 as gardeuer) now identifies the plant under discussion" 



" It is to be hoped that the copious dried specimens 

 sent home by Colonel Beddome for comparison with types 

 in the London Herbaria may clear up the matter ; but 

 this cannot be very confidently expected. Meanwhile, I 

 would recommend the suppression of the Spanish name of 

 *' Pata de GaUinazo" for our " hybrid." If the tree has 

 been duly described and named, we shall, of course, get 

 the proper appellation in time. If not or till then — since 

 the names "pubescens," " magni folia," " villosa," and 

 others are all, for various reasons, unavailable — we cannot, 

 I think, do better than adopt that already coming into 

 use in Southern India, rohusta, which is a very appropri- 

 ate one. By using this, we do not commit ourselves to 

 any views as to the origin of the plant, whether on the 

 plantations of the Nilgiris, or the higher slopes of Chim- 

 borazo." 



Colonel Eeddome's specimens were duly examined by 

 the Kew botanists. Mr. Dyer in his letter upon them 

 (in No. 332, 24th January 1882) agrees that " magnlfotia" 

 and " puhcsceyis" are practically one and the same plant. 

 As to " Pata de GaUinazo," he points out that Mr. Spruce 

 has described this and the closely allied " Cuchicara" in 

 his report (Blue Book I, pages 116, 117), that his specim- 

 ens are in the Kew herbarium, and that "although 

 there is some resemblance in the foliage it may be said 

 with some certainty that the Nilgiri ' jitoifiiifolia^ is not 

 the ' Pata de GaUinazo' of Chimboraza." It is further re- 

 marked that Spruce's specimens have been referred by 

 that botanist and by Howard to C. erythi'antha, Pav., and 

 that "this identification is probably correct;" also that 

 Mr. Triana considers both these specimens and C. ery- 

 tkrantlui, Pav., as belonging to the species O.puhescens, Vahl. 

 It is decided that " the most probable account that can 

 be given of the forms ^ pttbesceiis^ and ' ma</nifol ia^ is that 

 they are hybrids between succirubra, and o^cinalis." 



"With reference to the " unknown species" (No. 18) no 

 opinion is expressed ; as the specimens coUected by Mr. 

 Cross were in private hands, no comparison could be made.* 



8. Br. Bidie's Eejiorts. — Meanwhile Dr. Bidie had been 

 requested by Government to enquire into Mr. Cross's as- 

 sertions, and to coUect a good series of all the Naduva- 

 tum cinchonas and their barks. In his letter (No. 199), 

 dated 3rd March 1882, he summarily disposes of the no- 

 tion that any mistake had been made asto the plantknown 

 as C. succirubra. He also shows that ■< pubescen s " is not 

 as Cross maintained, C. succirubrayhMt g^-^ggests that it will 

 probably be found, ou comparison, to be " identical with 

 Spruce'.s pubescent ' Cuchicara ' of Llalla," above referred 

 to. As to the " mayiiifolia" Dr. Bidie considers Mr. Cross's 

 identification with " Pata de Galhnazo " " ^'h probably prove 

 correct." For both these opinions his b^sis is Spruce's 

 brief description above noticed. In a further letter (No. 

 284), dated 2yth JIarch, written after perusal of the remarks 

 of the Kew botanists. Dr. Bidie still supports the 

 above contentions, ou the grounds of (a) the occurrence 

 of the plants in the oldest plots of the Niigiri plantations, 

 (/') the probability of the truth of Cross's positive state- 

 ment, (c) the improbability of two livbrids so similar to 

 Spruce's two plants arising spontaneously, (d) the want 

 of any tendency to depart from type, and («) the frag- 

 mentary char.icter of Spruce's .specimens (as githered from 

 his narrative) rendering the comparison possibly faUacious. 

 Sir 'J. Hooker in reply (letters, dated 13th June, 7th July 

 and 3rd August) can see nothing in these obsen'ations to 

 cause him to alter the views previously expressed that " the 

 plant called ' maynifolia' is not the ' Pata de GaUinazo' 

 coUected by Spruce ; neither is the plant called 'pubescens' 

 the ' Cuchicara ' of the same traveller." [The discussion 

 of these questions is continued at page 8 of this report, 

 paragi'aphs 19 to 22.] 



A collection of weU-selected and (hied specimens of 38 

 different forms was made by Dr. Bidie (with an accom- 

 panying series of the barks from the same trees ) and forward- 

 ed to Kew where I had the opportunity of examining them 



* On the identification of (bis plant see paragraph 16 

 of this report. ^ 



