August i, 1882.] 



THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 



109 



tamed. My trees having been shaved I shall ha\'e no bark 

 to ship which could be sold by its appearance for 

 show purposes. — Yours faithfully, 



LIVE AND LET LIVE. 



[We suspect the remedy must be provided in local 

 sales for shipment to the Continent of Europe and 

 to America. We heard the other day of the very fail" 

 an-angemeut under which Messrs. V^olkart lirothers 

 buy, on analysis, for the Contiueut. This house has 

 shipped an eiionnous proportion of the season's exports, 

 and, considering the magnitude of London charges and of 

 the American difl'erential duty, we tlimk there can be 

 little doubt that local sales owjht to be the most pro- 

 fitable to tlie Ceylon bark cultivator. At the same 

 tunc, complaints are not wantuig in respect of local 

 sales : the way m which good twig bark and sha\ings 

 are sometmies sacrificed for ' an old song ' in Colombo, 

 while again parcels of decidedly inferior stutf, accord- 

 ing to age aud planting notions, realize a price beyond 

 expectations, is unaccountable. — Ed.] 



CINCHONA CLEARINGS. 



Sir, — The failures in a cinchona cle.iring are usu- 

 ally attributed to unsuitable soil, want of drainage, 

 or to bad planting, but may there not be another 

 and unlhought-of element in the matter? May not 

 the rays of the sun on the young tender .stem of 

 the plants have something to do with the numer- 

 ous failures experienced by I may siiy every planter 

 without exception. Would it not therefore be worth 

 while to try sheltering the young plants by wrap- 

 ping 6ome suitable material : moss, coconut fibre, 

 newspaper, old gunny stuft": or auything ^lso, loosey. 

 round the stem when being planted out ? The method 

 might also be adopted for coffee supplies, I om awure 

 tliat young plants are generally sheltered by twigs 

 with leaves upon them or by pieces of bark, but 

 in such cases the young leaves of the plauts are 

 smothered up and deprived of the influence of the sun 

 in causing the How of sap. 



Useful or useless, I offer the suggestion for the 

 consideration of planters of CINCHONA. 



LOCAL ANALYSES AND SALES OF CIN- 

 CHONA BARK. 



.lune IGtb, 1882. 



Dear Sir, — I duly read your footnote to my 

 letter, suggesting that the remedy might be by 

 selling the bark in Ceylon on analysis, but the least 

 said about a local analysis the better. These analyzers 

 differ as much as chalk does from cheese, all 

 giving a result well under a London analyzer's. Their 

 object in doing this, and tl]e reason wliy they are de- 

 fended by the brokers, I leave to more competent 

 hands than my own to dispose of. 



I have given the local market a fair trial, and 

 you can judge for yourselP whether it is a 

 fair one, even presuming the analysis was re- 

 liable. My experience of Colombo sales was that 

 I could only get 20c. a lb. for branch and; twij, 

 and, on writing to the broker about this unsatisfact- 

 ory price, and requesting him to have a subsequent 

 batch analyzed, his reply was that it would do no 

 good, as there was no sale for this on analysis. (Now, 

 when my stem bark contains over 2 per cent of 

 quinine, it is rather unreasonable to expect us to believe 

 the brauch and twig would only contain "33 per cent.) 



I B 'e by last mail that Howard's quinine was quoted 

 at 10s G'l per ounce, the equivalent being UG in Cey- 

 lon. Now suj^posing red boik by Ceylon analysis con- 

 tains only 1 per cent of quinine, and .5 per cent of 

 other alkaloids (all valuable), it would take 100 oz. 

 or G lb. to make 1 oz, of quinine, and, consider- 



ing the alkaloids are so good, we might expect at 

 the least Ivl per lb. for this (the quinine value 

 alone being that), but I regret to say only 50c. a 

 lb. can be obtained for this bark locally. — Yours 

 faithfully, LIVE .AND LET LIVE. 



[It is a pity tliat the medical officers in the plant- 

 ing distrio's are not qualified analysts to help the 

 cinchona industry. — Eo.] 



HYBRIDS AND CROSSES. 



June 15th, 1882. 

 De.ar Sir, — In your issue of the 9fch instant, \ 

 notice Mr. Gammic takes rae to task for having, in a 

 previous letter, represented bim to have said that 

 hybridization amongst cinchonas never took place. I 

 have not his former letter at hand to refer to, but 

 suffice it th.t he poiuts out I he niistuke, and I tiust he 

 will now allow me to apologize to him for it. He 

 will, however, kindly remember that my former letter 

 (written in joke rather than earnest) was in joint 

 reply to another communicition in your paper on the 

 same subject. And I would here add that I most 

 sincerely trust that nothing I did say in it may have 

 caused even a shade of annoyance either to himself or 

 to Mr. W. Smith : for to no two men is the un- 

 bounded respect I feel for them more absolutely due, 

 for their intelligent and successful exertions in the 

 development of the cinchona enterprize, and in turn- 

 ing the same to effectual account, to the benefit of 

 multitudes. Truly has Mr. Gamniie accomplished the 

 latter in his successful attempts to produce a reliable 

 febrifuge, and yea even quinine itself at a sufficiently 

 cheap rate ; and proud and happy may we well feel 

 over it all. Still there is one point I must yet dare 

 venture to join issue with him ; and, I fear I must 

 add, with yourself in your excellent and interesting 

 review of the subject of bis letter. I maintain, 

 though on other grounds quite, that there cannot 

 be such a thing as hybridization amongst the 

 true cinchonas. And as to my remarks thereon 

 in my previous lettfr, I 8se that Mr. (Jaramie passes 

 them over unnoticed ! He mentions that the two 

 varieties of tea are said to have a common origin, 

 and that, as it tak>3 two distbirt species to produce 

 a "hybrid," the term is in this case a misnomer \ 

 This I am quite willing to grant ; but I say that there 

 is quite as little actual proof that the varieties of 

 tea are of common descent as there is to the contrary 

 in the case of the cinchonas, and that some sounder 

 basis of argument than mere surmise is required in 

 either case, even supposing the question really hinged 

 on this point only or at all. Marked differences, 

 granted, there are, both iu outward appearance and 

 hal)it, between the different varietifS of cinchona, but 

 none greiiter are there betwixt officinalis in all its 

 forms, succiruhra, and the numerous, so-dejlned, caUsayas, 

 th m between a Shetland pony, a cart-horse, aud the 

 iu'ligenous wild horse of Thibet— more like an ass in 

 appearance than it is to either of the former, still it 

 is a true "horse," and said to be the original stock 

 a disputed question) from which all the different 

 domesticated breeds of horses are descended, oiUira.rd 

 appearance goiny for nothing ! Why ? Because struct- 

 ural difference ranks it among " horses " instead of 

 "asses"! And here the needful difference occurs to 

 originate a "hybrid." Now, as regards all the hitherto 

 cultivated varieties of cinchona, if I am right iu my 

 belief that there are no material structural differences 

 between any of them — in fact, that they are one and 

 aU true cinchonas — then I say that the tirm " hybrid" 

 may be a conmniint, but is nevertheless »n incorrect, 

 term to apply to tlie crosses in any ease produced 

 amongst themselves; th.at ti y are mere crosses; aud 

 that to obtain a bond fide "hrJ'rid" it is necessary to go 

 farther, though not neoesj^irily beyond the same 



