CINCHONACE^E. 369 



for a long time in the bark districts, seems to be of the same opinion ; and 

 states that much prejudice exists among the Cascarilleros or bark collectors, 

 and that they will reject one tree and eagerly select another without any valid 

 reason ; and also, that the same species is divided by them into several varie- 

 ties, and considered to afford different qualities or kinds of bark, on no set- 

 tled or definite principle. Nor are botanists less at variance, as regards the 

 species, there scarcely being any two of them who agree. This has arisen 

 from several causes; the principal of which is owing to the numerous 

 varieties that occur; and hence those who have only studied them from dried 

 specimens, have multiplied the species far beyond their true number, and thus 

 given rise to an almost inextricable confusion. 



The first account of Cinchona was given by Dr. Arrott ( Trans. Roy. Soc. 

 1737). At the same period Condamine, and in 1740 the elder Jussieu, ob- 

 tained specimens from near Loxa. In 1772, Mutis, a Spanish botanist, re- 

 siding at Santa Fe de Bogota, having discovered Cinchona trees in the vicinity 

 of that place, called the attention of his government to the fact, sent speci- 

 mens to Linnaeus, and having obtained official charge of the Cinchona forests, 

 became a leading authority among botanists, as to the trees producing the barks 

 of commerce ; but unfortunately he has occasioned much error and confusion 

 by asserting that the barks of the northern parts of South America were 

 identical with those of Peru and Chili ; this long misled botanists, and was 

 the cause of many of the difficulties that have arisen ; these were added to 

 by the inaccurate information on the several species he published in conjunc- 

 tion with Zea. 



The next to undertake the investigation were Ruiz and Pavon, who, under 

 the auspices of the Spanish government, commenced in 1777 an examination 

 of the botanical treasures of Peru ; the results of their investigations were 

 published from 1792 to 1801, in their Flora Peruviana and Quinologia, in 

 which they notice many species, and ascertained the qualities of their barks. 

 Their opinions were, however, attacked by Mutis and Zea, and unfortunately 

 the erroneous views of the latter were generally adopted by botanists, though 

 not to the same extent by pharmacological writers. 



Humboldt and Bonpland promulgated some valuable information in their 

 Plantce JEquinoctiales, but adopted the errors and misstatements of Mutis and 

 Zea, and hence rendered their observations of less practical value. In 1797 

 Mr. Lambert published his Description of the Genus Cinchona, and in 1821 

 his Illustration of the same, but like the authors just named, placed too much 

 reliance on the statements of Zea, and was thus led into the same errors. This 

 has also been the case with Romer and Schultes, in their Systema Vegetabi- 

 lium, and with De Candolle in his Prodromus. 



In 1838 Dr. Lindley, in his Flora Medica, from the ample materials with 

 which he was furnished, did very much in settling the species and synonymy, 

 and has given, by far, the best monograph of the genus yet laid before the 

 world, having all the works previously published, and access to an exten- 

 sive series of specimens collected by Mutis, both in Peru and Colombia, now 

 in the possession of Dr.. A. T. Thomson, as well as to thai of Mr. Lambert, 

 which, besides many others, contained nearly a complete set of those noticed 

 by Ruiz and Pavon. From these materials he has described twenty-one 

 species, and noticed five others. These will be adopted, with some few and 

 slight alterations and additions, in the following pages, and although it will 

 extend the account of the genus to a much greater length than could have been 

 wished, it is trusted that the importance of the subject will be deemed a sufficient 

 excuse. 



24 



