THE  TROPICAL  AGRICULl  LTR  1ST. 
[Feb.  I,  1896. 
restovptt  to  thoni.  ft  the  soil  lie  foiinrt  poor  nnrt 
nnsnil.alilf,  lieUer  soil  I'loio  luiolhei’  part  of  the 
^'aixlen  or  some  tmfy  loam  slum'd  .substituted.  No 
^rass  should  be  allowed  to  f'low  within  at  least  (I 
inches  of  the  stem  of  Standard  R' s s phuited  011 
lawns. 
ClIMBI.no  Oli  I’lLLAIt  IIOSKS. 
For  Cbmbinff  and  other  Roses  of  very  vigorous 
growth  the  whole  prepared  for  their  reception  should 
be  ‘2  feet  spuare  and  2 fe  t deep,  and  care  be  taken 
that  the  soil  be  of  a suitable  character  and  well 
enriched  with  maMire.  For  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  such  Roses  require  much  more  root-room 
than  those  which  are  pruned  back  every  year,  and 
in  most  cases  are  intended  to  occupy  the  same 
positions  for  many  years  to  come.  'I'lieiefore,  any 
extra  care  and  atleiuion  bestowed  on  the  p'anting 
of  strong-growing  Roses,  like  those  referred  to,  will, 
sooner  or  later,  will  be  repaid. 
St.vkixg  S'r.tsi)Aui>  Roses. 
As  the  plaining  proceeds,  each  plant  should  be 
secured  to  a firm  stake  of  some  kind.  In  order  to 
avoid  damaging  any  of  the  roots,  the  stalces  shou’d 
be  driven  firmly  into  the  holes  pr.'pared  for  the 
reception  of  the  plants  before  planting  them.  Fwarf 
(.r  bush-plants  do  not  need  staking;  but,  to  prevent 
injury  from  high  winds,  all  long  growths  should  ho 
shortened  previous  to  planting. 
The  Labei.i.inc.  of  Roses. 
Where  there  is  only  one  plant  of  any  variety,  a 
permanent  label,  with  the  name  of  the  Rose  either 
written  or  printed  upon  it,  should  be  attached  to  a 
small  stake  p’aced  near  it,  and  not  to  any  part  o 
the  plant  itself ; but  when  .several  plants  of  the  sani  ^ 
variety  are  grouped  togt  ther,  or  follow  one  another 
labels  will  only  be  necessary  at  the  1 eginning  of  each 
such  group  or  row. — (rav'hners'  Chronich. 
A SO-CALLFD  “ (^riNlNF-llAllK.” 
In  our  Trade  Reports  on  page  8i!8  of  the  issue 
for  December  7 last,  under  the  head  of  “ Interesting 
Drugs,”  we  referred  to  a small  consignnifnt  of  bark 
fro, 11  the  West  Coast  of  South  Anrerica  from  trees 
“growing  in  the  same  forests  which  yield  the  red 
cinchona%ark  of  commerce  ” The  bark  was  further 
said  to  be  used  medicinally  amongst  the  natives, 
and  it  was  supposed  to  contain  quinine.  Thnt  the 
bark  in  question  was  rubiaceous  there  was  but 
little  doubt,  but  it  could  not  be  further  identilied 
. fpg  time.  Some  new  light,  however,  las  since 
been  shed  upon  it,  though  it  by  no  means  clears 
its  specific  or  even  generic  i 'entity — indeed,  to 
^ome  extent,  it  is  further  mystified  ; but  as  the 
history  of  a bark  which,  if  not  identical,  is  very 
closely  Allied  to  it,  may  be  interesting,  and  withal 
lead  to  its  accurate  nomenclature,  we  give  the 
following,  which  we  have  been  at  some  pains  to 
trace  Referring,  in  the  first  plac  ■,  to  Guibourt’s 
“ Histoire  Naturelle  des  Drogues  Simples,"  published 
1850  we  find  amongst  the  lluhiaceoi  a bark  des- 
'"'•  hed  under  the  head  of  Qainquiim  hirolore,  which 
flwrees  in  its  structuie,  colour,  and  taste  with  the 
h rk  recently  received  in  the  Loudon  market.  The 
tree  however,  is  said  to  be  a native  of  Guadeloupe, 
^Viere  it  is  known  as  //ot.s  Javne.  Guibouit  gives 
> as  his  opinion  that  tliis  tree  is  identical  with 
1,  r ,le«cribed  by  De  Candolle  under  the  name  of 
glioTL  ..»<  '.»■  ?<  V" 
n , live  of  Guadeloupe,  a' d the  bark  recently  seen 
Vthe  London  market  com.iw  from  the  “West 
Jv,aat  of  South  America,  woul  1 seem  to  be  fatal 
o the  chances  of  their  having  any  afbnity  ; bnt 
nroceoding  further  in  ll.e  search  tor  more  mformati.  n 
procLo  F SI  I mul  own  III  bark  we  find  a reference 
xi  1S.U, 
„ ics  where  in  some  remarks  on  ( inrhviio  /‘ihu/ii, 
page  It.H,  V e e ^ Mr.  H.  W.  HnH,  teprmt  d from 
York  'He.iiilcr  0/  Mn/u  inc  anil  l‘lri,;„,ir,i  for 
1 ..-V  ISAO  ivo  re  d that  the  wi iter  was  show  11 
PX  e Ouibourt  at  the  Ecole  de  Rharma  ie 
iVvis  a specimen  of  I’iluyo  liaik  wlm  b Giiiboutt 
was  of  opinion  contained  either  quinine  or  cmchoiiiiio  ; 
but  file  writer  says  he  is  “confident  that  it  con- 
tains no  alkabne  principle  whatever,  and  iti  tonic 
propertio.s,  if  it  ]iosscsses  any,  must  bo  Lrac  d to  other 
souices  than  to  the  pieseiico  of  the  jirinciples 
which  have  hitherto  been  attributed  to  it."  An 
editorial  remark  on  this  [mper  draws  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  name  Pitayo  has  been  given  to 
two  entirely  different  barks,  one  of  which  is  the 
(Juiw/uiiia,  Ijicolore  of  Guiboiut,  and  is  the  produce 
of  Steiiostomivii  acutatuw  DC.,  and  the  other  a Cinchonn 
bark,  to  which  Professor  Guibourt  assigned  (he  name 
of  Ijiiinqnina  I'ilrnjo,  is  the  jiroduce  of  Colombia, 
and  somewhat  resembles  Calisaya  bark,  and  is  pro- 
bably yielded  by  Ciiirhoiia  acaih'iiiuii  of  Guibourt, 
which  really  equals  Cinclioiia  nfficlii<i/i.i  of  Linnajus. 
The  next  reference  to  the  bark  of  Stwnislownw 
we  find  in  a notiie  by  T.  C.  Archer  in  vol.  xiii., 
page  312,  of  the  l‘hannacvuUcol  Jonnud  for  1854, 
“ on  a few  articles  imported  into  Liverpool  in  1853." 
It  is  said  to  come  from  Va  paraiso  and  to  have 
been  iutroduced  under  the  name  of  Peruvian  bark, 
and  is  tlius  described: — In  respect  to  size  and  general 
appearance  this  bark  is  not  unlike  the  coarser 
sticks  of  cassia,  for  though  evidently  the  ( xtenial 
bark  of  a tree,  it  is  lemaikahly  smooth  and  neatly 
rolled  into  thin  quills  about  2 f et  ti  inches  in 
length,  ill  thickness  it  is  about  that  of  a sbilliiig, 
externally  of  a very  light  drab  colour,  ratlur  darker 
inside  the  quills,  hut  internally  tho  colour  is  cinna- 
mon red.  Mr  Archer  further  says  that  a sample 
was  forwarded  to  London,  where  it  was  n med 
Sttnoslomum  acututuni,  but  he  thought  probably  in 
mis'ake,  in  consequence  of  that  plant  being  a native 
of  Guadeloupe,  and  the  bark  coming  from  Val- 
paraiso. He  alfo  suggests  the  probability  of  its 
being  a species  of  Guettavda,  and  perhaps  0.  cordata. 
He  bases  this  suggestion  on  the  fact  of  the 
Guettardas  being  excellent  febrifuges,  and  beii  g used 
by  the  natives  as  such. 
We  have  had  an  opportunity  of  examining  a por- 
tion of  the  actual  sample  which  came  into  Mr. 
Archer’s  hands  in  1853,  and  comparing  with  it  the 
fre-h  sample  recently  received  in  London,  and, 
though  there  are  points  of  difference,  the  similarity 
is  very  great,  lii  the  fresh  sample  the  exterior  is 
of  a greenish  ' colour,  aud  not  drab;  the  inside, 
however,  is  very  like  it,  and  identical  in  striation. 
In  fracture  the  colour  shows  rather  more  yellow 
than  in  the  o'd  sample,  but  sections  as  seen  under 
a lens  are  so  much  alike  as  to  he  scarcely  distin- 
guishable the  one  from  the  other,  lu  taste,  too, 
they  are  alike.  The  old  bark  is  distinctly  quilled, 
and  somewhat  thicker  than  the  new,  which  is  m re 
tlatteiicd.  The  conclusions,  then,  to  he  arrived  at 
are  that  the  bark  recently  received  in  London  is, 
if  not  produced  by  the  same  tree  as  that  which 
made  its  appearance  in  Ijivorpool  in  18.53,  the 
produce  of  a very  closely  allied  plant,  but  what  the 
generic  name  of  that  plant  or  plants  is  it  is  still 
impossible  to  say  in  the  face  of  the  two  coming 
from  places  so  far  apart.  The  suggestion  as  toils 
being  a species  of  (lui-tturda  we  do  not  agree  witli. 
as  in  all  the  species  of  that  genus  we  have  had  the 
opportunity  of  examiuiug  tlie  barks  aie  totally 
different  and  without  the  slightest  trace  of  colour. 
Ill  conclusion,  it  may  be  well  to  say  that  the  genus 
Sleiio.Hlownin  is  now  sunk  in  that  of  Aiitin/iwa,  and 
that  De  Candolle’s  .S',  (icuhttum  is  now  known  as 
Antirrhiva  arislatii,  Bth.  and  Hook,  f — Chi’wint  and 
lhn<i<jist. 
THE  TliKATMENT  (»K  ( ’ASF.X  R I N.\  ON 
SAND-DINES. 
if.  E.  Mc.V.  Muir’s  interesting  remarks  011  the 
trea  meiit  of  saiid-dmios  in  l-’raiice  in  the  liidinii 
l<’uri-xh‘i-  fer  the  mouth  of  .Juno,  and  especially  his 
ri'Miarks  in  coiinection  with  the  giowlh  of  the  small 
piims  mar  the  sea-shore  ihough  entirely  “sheltered 
from  wind  ’ being  stunted,  as  compared  with  tho.se 
half  a mile  distant  exposed  to  the  “full  force  of  the 
western  gales,"  iiistigato  mo  to  record  a few  notes 
(,.11  the  Casuarina  ui.der  bomewhat  similar  circum- 
