THE MOST IMPORTANT CINCHONAS. 15 
hybridization between the Cinchonas, which, among themselves, 
are so closely related, may very easily be accomplished; but in 
nature it would be scarcely possible to distinguish whether such a 
mixed derivative is in question, or a form of a definite species 
which has originated through other influences. 
The view of Baillon,* which is moreover not based upon 
thorough observation, that about 20 species of Cinchona are to be 
accepted, may possibly be the most correct. 
SECTION II. 
THE MOST IMPORTANT CINCHONAS. 
As Cinchonas of most prominent importance, the following are 
at the present time to be designated :— 
(1) CincHona SucciruBra Pavon, Plate I. This beautiful tree, 
which attains a height of 25 meters (82 feet), bears ovate or some- 
what oblong, scarcely acuminate, thin leaves, which attain nearly half 
a meter (20 inches) in length, and often 35 centimeters (13.5 inches) 
in width; they are somewhat reflexed on the margin, and pubescent 
on the netted veins of the dull lower surface. The panicle of 
flowers is but slightly attractive. The distribution of C. succirubra 
in its native country is confined ; it descends from the western de- 
clivity of the Chimborazo (S. Antonio de Huaranda) southward 
through Riobamba, Alausi and Cuenca, to northern Peru (province 
of Jaén in the department of Caxamarca) deep into the valleys. : 
In Ceylon it flourishes admirably between 2000 and 5000 feet 
above the level of the sea; in the south-Indian Nilagiris between 
5000 and 7000 feet. C. succirubra is therefore well adapted for 
improvement by means of grafting or hybridization. Such a valu- 
able form, occurring in Ceylon as the product of Cinchona offici- 
nalis and C. succirubra, is designated by Trimen’? as Cinchona ro- 
busta. 
After Weddell for a short time had presumed the C. succirubra 
to be the mother-plant of the red cinchona bark, which, however, 
as C. ovata (y. erythroderma) he had not recognized with sufficient 
precision, Howard and Klotzsch furnished the proof of the inde- 
pendent character of the plant and its importance (page 46). The 
1 Histoire des Plantes. VU (1879), 342. 
? Pharm. Fourn. XU (1882), 352, 801, to18. The cinchona designated there, /oc. cit. 
VIII (1878), pp. 638, 805 and 825, as “‘ pubescens” or also as “‘ lanosa,”’ is not to be con- 
d with C. pubescens va4/. Of the former Bidie gives a tolerably good figure in the 
pamphlet mentioned under No, 3 in section 18. : 
