696 ORD. XL. Oleracere. . CANELLA ALBA. 
figure, which is given on the authority of Dr. Swartz, who pre- 
sented it to the Linnean Society, accompanied with a botanical 
history of the tree,* will, we hope, remove every doubt concerning 
the true characters of Canella alba; and by comparing the annexed 
plate with that published of the Winterana aromatica, in the fifth 
volume of Medical Observations and Inquiries by Drs. Fothergill 
and Solander,|| it may be observed how far the tree, which pro- 
duces the cortex winteranus, differs from that of our plant, the 
bark of which is the officinal Canella alba. The latter appears from 
Clusius to have been first introduced into Britain about the year 
1600;+ the former was known in England twenty years before, 
and took its name from William Winter, captain of one of the 
ships which accompanied Sir Francis Drake to the Straits of 
Magellan, from whence he brought this bark to Europe in 1579. 
John Bauhin appears to be the first ‘ who confounded the names 
of these barks, by styling the cortex winteranus Canella alba; and 
as Sir Hans Sloane, who has given a separate description of both 
trees, and was sensible of a difference in the taste of their barks, 
seems to insinuate that this might depend upon the place of 
growth, his remarks did not wholly remove the error.° 
Professor Murray, in his 14th edition of the Systema Vegeta- 
bilium, was the first who made a distinct genus of Canella, and thus 
corrected the mistake of Linnzus,{ who, disregarding the evidence 
“oF met. t. ie 
, 4 
* Read before the Linnean in December 1788. 
| “Some Account of the Cortex Winteranus, or Magellanicis, by Dr. John 
Fothergill, with a Botanical Description by Dr. Solander, and some Experiments 
by Dr. Morris.” p. 41._ 
+ He says, “ Ante paucos annos (1605) ceepit exoticus cortex inferri, cui 
nomen Canella alba indiderunt.” Exot. lib. iv. cap. 4. 
* Hist. vol. i. p. 460, © Phit. Trans. No. 192. p. 462. 
+ P. 443. Though Murray has here said, “ Cortex hujus est Canella alba 
oficinarum,” yet the London College has not availed itself of this authority, no 
botanical reference being given to Canella alba in the new pharmacepeia. 
