14 CINCHONA BARKS. 
The distinctions between A and B are very definite and based 
upon good observations. As a progressive step may be promi- 
nently noted the consideration of the ribs, which are represented 
by the fruits of the division A; other good points of observation 
are afforded by the edges of the corolla in C. Pahudiana, as also 
the widely expanded form of the fruit-calyx in A. The credit is due 
to Kuntze for having discovered these characteristics, which, as it 
appears, on the living plant are very sharply defined. The flowers 
and capsules suffer changes by drying which lead to deception, and 
half-ripe fruits of the division B may, in an herbarium, for example, 
present ribs which, during life at least, do not pertain to the ripe 
fruit. 
Between 1 and 2, as may be seen, there is no deficiency of very 
positive distinctions; the species 3 and 4, to judge from the descrip- 
tions and figures of Kuntze, are less widely separated. 
These 4 chief species of Kuntze correspond but slightly to the 5 
fundamental forms (stirpes) of Weddell. The former has observed 
living Cinchonas on the Indian plantations, Weddell, the species 
growing wild in Bolivia and Peru; both botanists have moreover 
compared dried specimens of forms which were not seen by them 
in nature. It must remain the task of a third systematic botanist 
to determine anew which method of comprehension best corres- 
ponds to the totality of the forms. Kuntze arranges the stems of 
Weddell in the following order:— 
(1) The forms of Weddell combined under C officinalis he 
declares as hybrids of C. Weddelliana with C. Pavoniana and C. 
Howardiana. 
(2) In the rugose he recognizes C. Pahudiana and related 
hybrids. 
(3) Weddell’s C. micranthe Kuntze declares as C. Pavoniana 
and derivatives belonging thereto. 
(4) The Catisaye as C. Weddelliana and hybrids. 
(5) The C. ovate of Weddell are, according to Kuntze, to be 
referred to C. Howardiana. 
_ It remains questionable whether anything is gained by exchang- 
ing the 51 species and sub-species of Weddell for the 44 species 
and hybrids of Kuntze, 
If, however, it be admitted that the origin of the forms which 
were met with by Kuntze in British India and Java have been 
correctly recognized by him, it is still not evident why the wild- 
growing Cinchonas of South America should be embraced, 
collectively and individually, with the hybrids accepted by Kuntze. 
The observations on the plantations have indeed proved that 
