Mr. Davipson’s Account, &c. 453 
It is undoubtedly a Cinchona, but not the Cinchona offici- 
nalis of Linnus; for it differs from it effentially in its bark 
in feveral particulars. It has an emetic quality not common to 
the true bark, breaks more woody and fplintery, and is far 
more naufeous to the tafte. Its decoction is of a dull Bur- 
gundy colour; and its extract refembles more the bitter of 
Gentian than that of the Quinguina. I have procured four 
ounces of it from half a pound of the Bark boiled in water, 
and herewith fend to you a {mall {pecimen. 
The drawings, which accompany this letter, are exact co- 
pies of the fpecimens which I received; I therefore hope they 
will not be thought unworthy the acceptance of the Royal 
‘Society. . 
I have the honour to be, &c. 
Hienrietta-fireet, Nov. 6, 1783. G. WILSON. 
Botanic character of the Bark-Tree of St» Lucia. 
“* Cinchona floribus paniculatis, glabris; laciniis linearibus, 
*¢ tube longioribus; ftaminibus exfertis3 foliis ellipticis, glabris.” 
Extract of a Letter from Mr. Georce Davivson, dated St. 
Lucia, July 15,°1733. 
IT is now about four years {ince Mr. ALEXANDER 
ANDERsoN difcovered in the woods, near the Grand Cul de 
Sac, fome trees refembling, in the botanical characters, the 
Nnn2 true 
