CINCHONACEiE. 



Bogota, having discovered forests of Cinchona about that city in the 

 year 1772, called the attention of his government to that important 

 fact, sent specimens to Linnaeus, subsequently received official charge 

 of the Cinchona woods from the Viceroy of Santa Fe, and thus 

 became of great authority in the eyes of European Botanists in all that 

 relates to the species producing the barks of commerce. Baron Hum- 

 boldt, who knew him personally, speaks of him in terms of great 

 commendation for his zeal, knowledge, and disinterestedness. Never- 

 theless it appears to me, as it also has to M. Guibourt {Hist, des 

 drogues, ed. 3. ii. 46.), that Mutis has more embroiled the history of 

 this valuable drug, and introduced a greater number of false ideas 

 concerning the quality and origin of its various samples, than all the 

 writers upon the subject since its first discovery. He asserted that the 

 barks of Santa Fe were the same as those of Peru, and thus led the 

 merchants of Europe to purchase at Carthagena, the sea-port for the 

 Kingdom of Santa Fe, barks similar indeed in name to those of Loxa, 

 Lima and La Paz, but resembling them in nothing else. The red bark 

 of Mutis is nothing more than the bad sort now called Quina nova, his 

 yellow bark has nothing to do either in quality or origin with C. Con- 

 daminea, nitida and others which are really possessed of valuable pro- 

 perties, but is in all probability yielded by C. cordifolia, and is what is 

 now named Carthagena bark; while his Quina blanca produced by 

 C. macrocarpa, and which is quite inert, has no Botanical connection 

 with the bark of that name from Loxa (See Guibourt ii. 47.). Finally 

 his orange bark, or Quina naranjada, so far from equalling the valuable 

 Calisaya of La Paz is according to Ruiz of second quality only, and 

 according to Guibourt extremely fibrous and of the worst description. 

 Humboldt speaks with indignation, of a large quantity of the Quina 

 naranjada which had been collected by Mutis at a great expense, 

 having been burnt as worthless, and ascribes the act to mercantile 

 cunning, but I am disposed with M. Guibourt rather to regard the 

 occurrence as a proof of the good sense, and knowledge of the King of 

 Spain's advisers. It appears that this Quina naranjada is of no value 

 whatever, being what Mr. Pereira calls Neiv Spurious Yellow Bark. It 

 is however in the highest degree uncharitable to impute to Mutis 

 any thing more than excessive zeal for the prosperity of his province; 

 and in fact it isa pparent from the following circumstance that his 

 want of correct Botanical discrimination was sufficient to lead him 

 unintentionally into the errors he committed. A great deal has been 

 said about specimens of Cinchonas sent by Mutis to Linnaeus. I 

 have examined those specimens. Those in the herbarium of Linnaeus 

 himself consist of loose dried flowers of two different species, one of 

 which is C. pubescens, the other I did not recognise ; along with them 

 are loose fruits of some species resembling C. stenocarpa, and a leaf 

 which is not that of a Cinchona at all. They are accompanied by a 

 barbarous drawing of what was probably intended for C. pubescens; 

 the whole are called C. peruviana. Yet although the principal part of 

 these documents belongs to C. pubescens, I do not find that species 

 even mentioned by Mutis as belonging to the Flora of Santa Fe. It 

 is not perhaps fair to carry this criticism further, and to blame M. Mutis 

 for the inaccuracy of his friend Zea and his disciples. It is however 

 not unimportant to show what dependence can be placed upon the 

 information hitherto obtained from that source. I happen to possess 

 two dried specimens of Cinchonas from Santa Fe, named under the 



408 



