CINCHONA. 



authority and auspices of M. Zea. One of them is C. pubesccns, and 

 is marked C. cordifolia Mutis, ovata Fl. Peruv., pubescens Vahl., all 

 three different species ; the other which is C. lucumcefolia is marked 

 C. lancifolia Mutis, to which it has no resemblance. 



Ruiz and Pavon, two zealous botanists employed by the Spanish 

 Government in examining the Vegetation of Chili and Peru, are by far 

 the most extensive and original writers upon this subject who have yet 

 published the result of their inquiries. They visited the fine Cinchona 

 countries, examined into the question personally with great care, and 

 after their return to Europe received a great quantity of most valuable 

 evidence from Don Juan Tafalla who remained in Peru, and from 

 other persons. The result of their labours has been published in the 

 Flora Peruviana, the Quinologia and the Supplement to that work ; I 

 have also examined a very valuable MS. left by Ruiz, and now in the 

 possession of Mr. Lambert. They described several new species, 

 although by no means all that are found in Peru, many of which are 

 still unpublished, and determined with the most scrupulous accuracy 

 the qualities of their barks. Their opinions are, however, rudely ques- 

 tioned, and their statements denied by Mutis, and especially by Zea, a 

 most incompetent judge, and the erroneous views of the latter writers 

 have been adopted by every Botanical author since that time, except 

 Mr. Pdppig. Pharmacological writers have, however, not coincided 

 with Messrs. Zea and Mutis ; in particular Guibourt, Pereira, Royle, 

 and Wood and Bache, have clearly seen the impossibility of the state- 

 ments of the Santa Fe botanists being true. For my own part I have, 

 botanically, followed Ruiz and Pavon, step by step, with their own 

 specimens and many others before me, and I am bound to say that in 

 my opinion they are entitled to the greatest confidence for care and 

 accuracy. Nothing can be so absurd as to pronounce the species they 

 have described as mere varieties of each other ; all they have dis- 

 tinguished are most unquestionably distinct ; and the only error that I 

 can discover them to have committed has been that of having left 

 many other species still unnamed. The evidence I have examined ena- 

 bles me to speak upon this point with confidence. 



The principal part of the observations made by Ruiz and Pavon has 

 been used by M. Laubert, chief physician to the Spanish army, in a 

 " Memoir upon the different species of Quinquina ; " of which a trans- 

 lation has been published by Mr. Lambert. That part which is bor- 

 rowed from the published works of the Spanish Botanists deserves to 

 be consulted- by those who have not access to the original works ; 

 but the additional matter, derived from other sources is not to be 

 depended upon. For example M. Laubert professes to give a correct 

 tabular arrangement of the vernacular names of the Quito barks, 

 distinguishing them from each other by short botanical characters, and 

 referring them to their species. His first species is C. microphylla a 

 name unknown to Botanists, but which Mr. Lambert says, upon the 

 authority of Zea, was given by Mutis to the small-leaved variety of 

 C. glandulosa Fl. Peruv. Under this M. Laubert collects the Case. 

 Chauharguera which belongs to C. Condaminea, Case. Pata de GaUareta 

 the produce of C. ovata, and the C. lucumcefolia. For these reasons M. 

 Laubert's Memoir does not appear to me deserving of further notice. 



Messrs. Humboldt and Bonpland have given some valuable and 

 generally very correct information concerning certain species, in their 

 splendid Plants aequinoctiales. But I must confess that the synonymy 

 409 



