28 Finckneya pubens 



present plant might have been referred to the Peruvian genus, with 

 propriety. So much does Pursh incline to this opinion, that he re- 

 marks, "if Pinckneya is not united with Cinchona, there will he some 

 of the latter genus found belonging to Pinckneya." Unwillingtomake 

 innovations in the nomenclature of botany, which is already suffici- 

 ently confused by synonymy, the Pinckneya is suffered to remain 

 where it was placed by Michaux, its reputed discoverer, although 

 my own opinion on the subject, leans to the propriety of uniting it 

 with the Peruvian barks, the more especially as, together with its 

 generic affinities, it presents a similarity of medicinal virtues. The 

 only difference in the fruit pointed out by Michaux, is the opening 

 of the capsule in a line traverse with the axis of its partition, and 

 not parallel to it as in Cinchona. Indeed, the fruit in its maturity is, 

 as Mr. Nuttall has stated, distinctly bipartite in the line of the dissepi- 

 ment as in Cinchona, and not contrariwise to the valves, but a con- 

 tinuation of their margin, proceeding inwardly to the axis of the cap- 

 sule. Yet it must be confessed, there is a habit in Pinckneya foreign 

 to that of the generality of the species of Cinchona, and perhaps the 

 peculiarity of its ceconomy, apparent in the bracteiform enlargement 

 of one of the divisions of the calix, together with the form of the 

 calix, which differs from that of Cinchona independently of the fruit, 

 may be considered veritable points of discrepancy from that genus. 

 It is remarked by some European botanists, that in the peculiarity 

 just mentioned, this tree agrees with the first and second species of 

 Mussamda, where the bracteiform enlargement of the calix occurs; 



