Aublet’s Hevea guianensis. Elsewhere on the sheet, ap- 
parently in the elder Linnaeus’ hand, there is an anno- 
tation ‘‘Gummi elastique.”’ 
A detailed search through the collection of Mutis’ 
correspondence with Linnaeus, preserved at the Lin- 
naean Society, revealed an enumeration of two ship- 
ments of plants from Colombia to Sweden. The speci- 
men in question was included in the second shipment. 
We find that Mutis had made, under ‘‘89’’ in the enu- 
meration of the specimens of this shipment, the follow- 
ing interesting annotation: ‘‘Pro Chinchona habita ab 
incolis guyanae.’” Even though the term guyana was 
rather loosely employed in this early period to designate 
much of southern Venezuela and the Orinoco basin, it 
has been impossible for us to ascertain Mutis’ source for 
this statement. It is, of course, highly significant as an 
observation, because Cusparia trifoliata is the source of 
Angostura-bitters and has been used rather widely in 
South American folk-medicine as a febrifuge. Humboldt 
states that ‘‘On the coasts of New Andalusia, the cuspa 
is considered as a kind of Cinchona.”’ ° 
Further study of Mutis’ correspondence has failed to 
shed any light on Linnaeus’ source for his annotation 
‘*Gummi elastique.’” It is most probable, in our opin- 
ion, that the note was added somewhat casually for the 
benefit of students after the plant had been determined, 
to Linnaeus’ apparent satisfaction, as representing the 
concept now known as Hevea guianensis. Cusparia tri- 
foliata, of course, is not a latex-bearing plant. 
There is an additional annotation on the sheet. It is 
in pencil, apparently in the handwriting of Smith, and 
states that the specimen is markedly different from a 
sterile specimen from Brazil which Linnaeus had likewise 
® Personal Narrative (translated by H. M. Williams) 3 (1822) 27. 
[ 14 | 
