Dr. Hancock on tin Angustura Hark Tree. 17 



1 trust, prove a sufficient apology for iu\ drawing the attention 

 •f the Medico-Botanical Society to the Tree from which this 

 drukf is obtained. 



Having travelled repeatedly, and resided during several 

 months (particularly during- August and September, 1816), in 

 the missions of Carony, and sketched a map of the district, I 

 had an opportunity of seeing many thousands of the Bark 

 lYees, and of examining numerous specimens on the spot, 

 deeming it, as a medical practitioner, a duty incumbent on me 

 to improve the opportunity which then offered, of making my- 

 self thoroughly acquainted with its botanical characters, well 

 knowing how imperfectly they had been described in the dif- 

 ferent works then extant. In the course of my observations, I 

 remarked that it would have been impossible for any botanist, 

 however expert, to recognise the Angustura Bark Tree with the 

 assistance of any one of those works, into which its descriptions 

 ha\e all been transcribed from that of Baron Alexander de 

 Humboldt and his scientific coadjutor, M. Aime Bonpland ; 

 and I have no doubt that those learned gentlemen themselves 

 will confess, should these pages ever reach them, that they 

 have fallen into an error by trusting too much to the testimony 

 of others. I was informed by MM. Ravigo and Jose Terreas, 

 with whom the travellers lodged at Angustura, that they did 

 not \isit the missions of Carony, but sent an Indian, who re- 

 turned with a sample (muestra) of the leaves, but, much to 

 their disappointment, without Mowers. It is. therefore probable 

 that their descriptions refer chiefly to specimens which they 

 observed in the province of Cuinana, where a species of the 

 (ieinis to which the Angustura Hark Tree appertains mav grow 

 to the size mentioned. 



I shall now endeavour to lay before the Society, in as concise 

 a manner as possible, the results of my observations on the ex- 

 ternal uppe.ii.mce of tin* plant; the prominent differences be- 



tue.-n ,, n deoeriptioa tod th.it of Humboldt and Boopfciajd in 



their iplendid work on the .ivjuinoctiul plants, and, lastly, iho 



C 



