158 NEW PUBLICATIONS. 
sity of having recourse to the very ee costly, and probably impracticable 
project of forming quina plantation 
The fourth part of the * Arcano de la Quina’ has never before been printed. 
Yet it is the only part which is now of any practical value, as it contains the 
botanical descriptions of the Chinchona species of New Granada, which were 
Caldas bitterly complained, without labels or notes. There are also a number 
of rent drawings of Chinchone in the same room, together with upwards 
of 20,000 drawings of other plants, and 5000 beautiful coloured drawings by 
the roa American disciples of Mutis. The whole collection is in a lament- 
able state of confusion and neglect, and is likely to remain so. There seems to 
be no hope that the present or any future government of Spain will go to the 
expense of publishing the results of labours undertaken under the auspices of 
their more worthy predecessors in the days of Charles III. 
The fourth part of the work of Mutis commences with a synoptical table of 
the species which he subsequently describes. They are seven in number, four 
of which (being those already mentioned in the second part) he classes as 
having hairy corollas :— 
si lancifolia, C. oblongifolia, 
C. cordifolia, C. ovalifolia, 
and three as having smooth corollas :— 
C. ora. C. parviflora. 
ongi 
C. dis. aniiforal 
Only two of these would be considered as true Chinchone by Dr. Weddell, 
yen a lancifolia and C. cordifolia. 
tis commences his botanical descriptions with a carefully rewritten de- 
diipton of the genus, Then follows the C. lancifolia with 3 varieties (a 
the Cascarilla magnifolia of Weddell ; ; the C. ovalifolia is s the Qascarilla ma 
erocarpa of Weddell; the C. longiflora is the Cosmibuena obtusifolia of Ruiz 
and Pavon ; the C. dissimili iflora is the Exostemma dissimilifiorum, and the C. 
parviflora is doubtful.” 
Mr. Markham avails himself of this opportunity to break another 
lance in favour of the true spelling of the genus Chinchona, and we 
reproduce with pleasure his arguments, which seem to us unassailable :— 
“ Linnæus, who first described it, chose the most appropriate name for it 
that could possibly have been selected, namely, that of the noble lady who had 
first made its healing virtues known. But most unfortunately Linneus was 
