756 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
[March e, 1882. 
I say of the smooth-leaved form that it " may be 
another variety [of ofSoiualis] or not improbably a 
permanent hybrid of officinalis with succirubra," and 
of the pubescent form that it "approaches C. succi- 
rubra" (pp. 23-24). It may turn out a distinct 
species, but I think that data are wanting still to settle 
the question, and that Col. Beddome's report does 
not supply them. In our view of the plant being 
a "hybrid," we, in Ceylon, have, of course, followed 
Mclvor, who, on many occasions since 1872, had 
stated such to be the case. Col. Beddome throws 
over the late superintendent without hesitation as 
untrustworthy, and pins his faith to the recollections 
of Mr. Cross. Apart from the lalter's story of the 
collection of the plants (which will be found in a 
letter printed at p. 32 of Col. Beddome's report*), 
the only direct evidence against Mclvor's view brought 
forward is that trees are found "in the oldest plant- 
ations [1862] at Nedivatam ;" but it appears that 
this is not Col. Beddome's own observation. The 
earliest plantation in which he has seen trees of the 
kind is one of the 1865 planting, and no satisfactory 
evidence is given that the plants here were not sup- 
plies. The acknowledged fact that sowings of the 
seed always show a proportion of succirubra and 
officinalis in the progeny is readily disposed of by 
the observation that it is "of course" due to care- 
less gathering. Careful experiment alone can decide 
this point — in a practical planter's view, the most 
important one of all : it will not be settled by dogmatic 
statements one way or the other. As regards the 
characters of the plants, they are in all respects 
intermediate between officinalis and succirubra, and 
in every point and degree in which a given speci- 
men differs from one of these species it approaches 
the other. The intermediate character is also carried 
out on the whole in the proportions of the alkaloids 
in the bark, variable and uncertain as is the analysis 
of these trees. 
No doubt Col. Beddome may prove to be per- 
fectly right in his opinion as to the autonomy of this 
cinchona : I merely wish to point out that in my 
opinion the evidence he brings forward is by no 
means conclusive. 
But indeed, on this matter, the Colonel's opinion poss- 
esses less weight than it might have from tbe singular 
position he has taken up with reference to hybridity 
m cinchona in general. This is, of course, not the place 
to enter into any discussion. It is scarcely Becessary 
even to point out that the dimorphic arrangements of 
the flower which Col. Beddome cites as conclusive 
against natural crossing are precisely those which have 
been shown over and over again to be those specially 
a''rpted to ensure cross-fertilization by insect agency. 
The production of hybrids in nature is by no means 
an uncommon thing . In some genera they are frequent ; 
and whether our " hybrid " cinchona turn out to be 
one really or not, that cro3S-fertilization and hybridity 
occur in our mixed plantations by the visits of insects 
I consider almost certain. Mr. Moens is now engaged 
in an elaborate series of experiments in artificial cross- 
fertilization with the object of comparing his results 
with the naturally-produced sports and varieties in 
the plantations. This is a long business, but, in due 
time, we may hope to have somo direct evidence on 
this perplexing matter. 
I also desire to say a few words as to the name 
which this cinchona should bear. It is I think much 
to be regretted that the name " Pata de Gallinazo" 
should have been brought out of its obscurity by Mr. 
Cross and adopted (even provisionally) by Col. Bed- 
dome. This is a mere bark-collcctor's namo and is 
* In conversation, Col. Beddome told me that Mr. Cross 
declared he had sent seed of this to India, but nothing is 
Mid o£ this ia this report. 
used in different parts of the Andean chain for at 
least 6 different kinds of bark. That which has the 
best claim to it (as having been first published and 
more often used) is the best sort of grey bark col- 
lected by Pritchett in Huanuco and referred to C. peru- 
viana or C. micrantha. This " Pata de Gallinazo" was 
one of the first cinchonas sent to Hakgala from the 
Nilgiris. (See Dr. Thwaites' Report for 1860 61.) It 
is, of course, tbe case that the name is also used for 
the " Cascarilla serrana" or Hill red bark, which Dr. 
Spruce obtained on Chimborazo at 8,500 to 9,000 feet, 
and with which Mr. Cross (who accompanied Dr. Spruce 
as gardener) now identifies the plant under discussion.* 
But Dr. Spruce himself, with Mr. J. E. Howard, long 
ago determined his "Pata de Gallinazo" to be C. 
coccinea Pav. (see his letter quoted in Wedded, notes, 
page 30 (1869), and it is no doubt in accordance with 
this determination that Howard now refers Cross's 
"Pata" bark from the Nilgiris to that species (see 
Beddome's report, page 30). The plate, however, of 
C. coccinea, (taken from authentic specimens) in the 
" Illust. Nuev. Quinol" is totally unlike our plant. 
All this is, perhaps, scarcely in place in your columns, 
but it will shew how far the matter is from final 
solution. It is to be hoped that the copious dried 
specimens sent home by Col. Beddome for comparison 
with types in the London Herbaria may clear up 
the matter ; but this cannot be very confidently ex- 
pected. Meanwhile, I would recommend the sup- 
pression of the Spanish name of " Pata de Gallinazo" 
for our "hybrid." If the tree has been duly described 
and named we shall, of course, give the proper ap- 
pellation in time. If not or till then — since the names 
"pubescens," " magnifolia,'' " villosa," and others are 
all for various reasons unavailable— we cannot, I think 
do better than adopt that already coming into use 
in Southern India, roburta, which is a very appro- 
priate one. By using this, we do not commit ourselves 
to any views as to the orgin of the plant, whether 
in the plantations of the Nilgiris, or the higher 
slopes of Chimborazo. — I am, your obedient servant, 
HENRY TRIMEN. 
CINCHONA (HYBRIDA) ROBUSTA. 
Royal Botanical Garden, Jan. 30th, 1882 
Sir, — On November 26th of last year, you published 
a communication from me as to my views on the nature 
of the cinchona now generally known as the robusta 
variety. I bad found it necessary to address the plant- 
ing community through you on the matter, in conse- 
quence of a very erroneous statement in Col. Beddome's 
report on Ceylon as to my position ; and I gave 
reasons, though avoiding any pretence of being able 
to decide the matter here, for supporting the view 
hitherto held that the plant was a hybrid of Nilgiri 
origin, in opposition to the dictum of Mr. Cross that it 
was identical with the " Pata de Gallinazo" of Chim- 
borazo. Tbis statement Col. Beddome had accepted 
and strongly supported, considering the plant to be a 
quite distinct species, and, in the concluding paragraph 
of my letter, I expressed a hope that the abundant 
specimens he had sent home for comparison with 
named types might decide the matter. 
The necessary examination has been made at Kew 
Herbarium, by Prof. Oliver and Mr. Dyer, and I am 
now able to supplement my former letter by this 
more definite information. As a communication on the 
subject has been addressed by Mr. Dyer to the Indian 
* Col. Beddome's report (p. 8.) contains the extraordin- 
ary assertion (derived from Mr. Cross ?) that Dr. Spruce 
" could never have seen the trees." But the latter describes 
their appearance, bark and leaves — the flower and fruit 
he did not get — in his paper in the " Journal of the Lin- 
nean Society" iv. p. 185. Indeed, it is Mr. Cross's share 
in this matter that is the novelty. 
