CINCHONA VEL CHINCHONA. 401 



Linnaeus of certain works of the latter, and expresses his 1875. 

 pleasure at the honourable mention of himself by Linnaeus 

 under the head of Cinchona; and he also refers to a small 

 present which he transmits by Don Euiz-Pavon, who is going 

 to Upsala. 



"8 Feb., 1777. This letter contains notes on some plants 

 sent by Mutis to Linnseus, one of them being entered as 

 Cinchona Bogotensis. 



"12 Sept., 1778. A long letter of condolence from Mutis to 

 the younger Linnaeus. It contains the following passage : 

 ' Maxirne disto a solo natali Cinchonae officinalis a me detectse, 

 cujus viciniis crescit etiam Mutisia.' 



"In none of these letters is there a hint of disapprobation 

 of the name Cinchona, which it will be noticed that Mutis 

 adopts, immediately he finds it used by Linnaeus. 



" Mr. Markham asserts that the error was pointed out by Ruiz and 

 Euiz and Pavon. But surely he cannot be conversant with the 

 Quinologia of Euiz, published at Madrid in 1792, or with the 

 Suplemento, which appeared, under the joint authorship of 

 Euiz and Pavon, nine years later, in neither of which works is 

 the name of Linnaeus's genus written otherwise than Cinchona. 

 Mr. Markham must be also unaware that in the Flora Peruviana 

 et Ckilensis of Euiz and Pavon, the name in dispute is 

 uniformly written Cinchona, and never Chinchona. Pavon, 

 indeed, in his later years is stated by Howard to have pleaded 

 for the word Chinchona. This was done in his Nueua Quinologia, 

 a work written between 1821 and 1826, but which never saw 

 the light until 1862, when it was edited in an abridged form by 

 Mr. Howard. 



" But the error in the name of the Spanish viceroy originated 

 long before the time of Linnaeus. Sebastiano Bado, the author adopted ante 

 of Anastasis Corticis Peru/owe (Genoa, 1663), and one of the lni 

 principal authorities for the early history of Peruvian bark, 

 writes 'Cinchon' for Chinchon. Morton, in his Pyretologia, 

 1692, mentions the Count's name in the same inaccurate 

 manner. So does La Condamine in 1738, and Geoffroy in 1741. 

 By some of these writers Linnseus was misled, and was after- 

 wards, perhaps, fortified in his error by the rules he had laid 

 down about the immutability of generic names. 



" That one of these rules was supposed to apply to the case 

 in question, is evident from the remark of Euiz: 'Linneo 

 parece que debio haber expresado el titulo de los Condes de 

 Chinchon en su genero, dandole el nombre de Chinchona y no 

 el de Cinchona, con el que tambien le nombro yo, atendiendo 



D D 



