ADDENDA ET COEEIGENDA. 
37 * 
“The specimen, therefore, was of the finest bark in our possession. I do not think I over-state, when I add that, in yield of 
Quinine, it is of the finest quality that has ever been recorded. It possesses every characteristic constituting excellence. It yields 
alkaloids in such purity that the first crystallization gives sulphate of Quinine, which stands the usual tests as well as the refined 
salt. I would earnestly recommend that the plant be extensively propagated, and as rapidly as possible. The possession of this 
species is a most fortunate circumstance.”* 
I have also had the honour to present the Government with young plants from a small tree in my possession, with which Mr. 
MUvor was so much pleased, that he took out a layer which he himself had made of it. I name this provisionally G. Forbesiana , 
to commemorate Mr. David Forbes, who, after many adventures (which I have described in a paper sent to the Botanical Congress 
in 1866, page 199), brought the seed to England. I may possibly describe both these kinds more particularly in a future part. 
For the present, I will only add that the analogy of the leaf of the 0. Forbesiana is with the G. Icmeifolia , but that of the flowers, 
which have unfortunately not advanced with me beyond the state of buds, seems to be with G. micrantha . 
3. In reference to mossing the bark, and the reproduction of the bark after it has been removed from the trees, Mr. Broughton 
has the following remarks confirmatory of the views expressed by myself : — 
“The bark of trees that have been subjected to the mossing treatment introduced by Mr. MTvor has been so abundantly 
examined by Mr. Howard, from specimens supplied at intervals for that purpose, that repetition by myself of the experiments on 
the same limited scale appears almost supererogatory. The following analyses may be adduced as quite corroborating former 
ones : — 
No. 1. 
Bark of C. sued • 
rubra sixteen months 
under moss. 
No. 2. 
Bark of same trees 
renewed under moss 
sixteen months. 
Total alkaloids ....... 
10*72 
8-22 
Quinine ........ 
4*31 
5*14 
Chincbonine and Chinchonidine .... 
6*41 
3-08 
Total sulphates obtained crystallized 
9-27 
4*67 
Sulphate of Quinine ...... 
4-02 
3-87 
Do. Chinchonidine ..... 
5-25 
0-80 
“ The barks yield by mossing a greatly increased amount of alkaloid, and in a state which permits them to crystallize with 
facility as sulphates. The bark No. 2, renewed under moss, was thinner than natural bark, and lost more weight on drying. It 
should be remembered, however, that the renewed bark was sixteen, while the natural bark was sixty-six months old. This 
specimen was remarkable for the large amount of Chinchonine it contained. Had the sulphate of this base been reckoned among 
the total sulphates, their amount would have been upwards of six per cent. As already remarked by Mr. Howard, freshly-renewed 
bark contains a considerable amount of uncrystallizable Quinine. f I have continually observed this peculiarity of young bark, 
whether it be obtained from young trees directly, or produced by “renewal” on older trees. It would seem that it is as uncrys- 
tallizable Quinine that the alkaloids are first formed by the natural processes in the plant. Thus, from the 3*23 per cent, of 
Quinine found in some young Bed Bark two and a -half years old, but 1*97 of Sulphate of Quinine was obtainable crystallized; 
while in some bark sixteen months old, but one-fifth of the Quinine found would give a crystalline sulphate. J 
“ The process of mossing the bark appears to require trial on a scale in which the increase, both of bark and alkaloid, could 
be systematically determined, and the cost , compared with other methods of cropping the bark, such as coppicing, etc. These 
points are obviously necessary to an estimation of the practical value of the method, and at present are only guessed at. The 
repeated treatment of single trees, and analyses of the bark after so many concurrent experiments, seems comparatively useless 
labour, while there exist so many other questions of a chemical nature to be settled. Unless, therefore, Government are pleased 
to direct otherwise, I shall only give the subject that attention which its actual practical working demands, or that its connection 
with the histological chemistry of the plant may require.” 
4. I have mentioned that Mr. Broughton agrees with me that the liber fibres are not the seat of the alkaloids. Mr. Broughton 
adds, to a paragraph already quoted, the following information : — 
“The opinion of authorities as to the principal seat of Quinine in the bark has been divided. Weddell, Wigand, Schleiden, 
and others have concluded, on theoretical grounds, that the liber is the part of the bark in which the alkaloids are situated ; 
Howard, on the contrary, by direct trial, has satisfied himself that the main seat of the alkaloids is in the cellular portions of the 
bark which are external to the liber. Having far greater facilities for determining the question than any other chemist has 
# Mr. Broughton suggests that “ it is not improbable that the species may be the C. Pitayensis, whose excellence it possesses.” Mr. Batcock has 
brouoht home a large collection of specimens of Chinchonse, and among them this important species appears represented by leafy branches of foliage, 
resembling the C. lancifolia of Dr. Karsten, but that rather in the general habit of the plant than in the exact shape of the leaf. It is certainly not the 
C. Pitayensis as represented in a specimen brought by Cross, and in my possession, of the Quina roja of the Pinon of Pitayo, but may probably belong 
to one of the forms of Cinchona lancifolia in the region of Popayan ; that called the Calisaya of Santa Fe is very rich in Quinine in its native habitat at the 
head of the valleys of the Cauca and Magdalena. 
t But. see the microscopical observations for my views on this point. — J. E. H. 
+■ In these young barks the injurious resin abounds.— -J . E. H. 
