442 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [December3, 1870. 
mavit Howard, a magistratu nostro Indico jussum 
fuisse arbores ipsas innumerabiles diruere et ex- 
stirpare ” (p. 270). 
An extract from the Official Report of the Trans¬ 
actions in the Dutch Parliament of 27 May, 1802 
(sent me in the original and in a translation), is as 
follows:— 
Mr. Uhlenbeck, Minister of the Colonies, speaks,— 
“ And to show the great difference, I communicate 
that in all the time that the cinchona culture has 
been performed on a large scale, there have only 
been planted 7804 cincliona-trees which realty con¬ 
tain quinine, wliilst in the meantime there have 
been planted 1,029,291 trees (Pahudianas), which 
are only fit for firewood ( brand hout ).” 
Ditto of the session of the Parliament on 2nd June, 
1863. Mr. Van Eck (M.P.) speaks:— 
“ The former Minister of the Colonies stated only 
the trees are firewood , we must destroy them” 
(uitroeijen , to root out, extirpate, destroy, exterminate). 
Professor Miquel also says in the same work:— 
“ Tasdiosam liistoriam liaud repetam, nec liabeo 
quae ultro opponam Howardio qui me dissentientem 
indigne tractavit in plagula quadam diurnorum nos- 
trorum mendacem me exclamans.” 
As I never wrote (nor could write) an article in 
a Dutch newspaper, M. Miquel can only refer to the 
folio whig extract from a letter of Dr. de Vriese, 
who died in 1862, and consequently cannot defend 
himself. 
A letter from myself to Dr. de Vrij, published 
with my permission, contains the following in refe¬ 
rence to the determination of the C. Pahudiana 
(Prof. Miquel, contrary to De Vriese, Dr. Weddell, 
Markham, etc., identifying the plant with C. Cara- 
bayensis ):— 
“I sent over to Dr. de Vriese a fine specimen of 
the plant hi question with the fruit well developed, 
given me by Dr. Weddell himself. And in a letter 
written subsequently, under date 4tli November, 
1860, Dr. de Vriese says,—The examination and 
comparison of C. Carabayensis and C. Pahudiana 
has shown me indubitably that the two species are 
different. To maintain a contrary opinion would be 
a He.” 
I proceed to say, “ I hesitate to copy the above 
strong expressions, but they throwHglit on the subject, 
as showing there must have existed some excitement 
of the feelings, connected, no doubt, with the great 
material interests at stake, which may have interfered 
with calm scientific inquiry, and led, in Dr. de 
Vriese’s opinion, to erroneous Statements.” 
So far my letter, and I must add that it is a very 
unimportant matter, in comparison, whether these 
species are identical or (as in my judgment) separate. 
I had shown in my ‘ Quinologia ’ their points of re¬ 
semblance as well as of separation; but it is im¬ 
portant that a personal attack, against which I have 
no opportunity to defend myself, should appear in a 
work published at the expense and under the au¬ 
spices of the Dutch Government. 
Since the departure of M. Pahud, and the death 
of Dr. Jungliulm, the cultivation of the plantations 
has passed under different management, as I have 
mentioned in the Appendix to my work previously 
mentioned. 
The proportion of plants of different species is 
now very different. In the second quarter of 1870, 
according to a paper sent me by Dr. Hasskarl, the 
plants were as follows:— 
C. Calisaya and C. Hasskarliana 1,100,983 
C. succirubra and C. caloptcra* . 152,782 
C. officinalis . 222,904 
C. lancifolia . 43,227 
C. micrantha . 620 
Total . . 1,520,516 
The progress of the cultivation is spoken of in 
warm and eulogistic terms, and the number of C. 
Pahudiana trees (now grown to a good height) is left 
out of the account. 
It is unfortunate, however, that all has to be tested 
by practical results, and the favourable analyses at 
present published, have their true value brought to 
light by the price per pound paid for the barks set 
forth for public sale in Amsterdam. 
In the past season there was a pretty large im¬ 
portation of these barks; and samples under the 
name of Konings Kina and Bruine Kina were for¬ 
warded to this country, where they were examined, 
but did not meet with much acceptance. A sale 
has since taken place in Holland, and the results are 
not a Httle curious, and certainty worthy of record. 
The so-called Calisaya, or Konings Kina, was bought 
(as I am informed) by a druggist, at about 2 s. En- 
ghsh, with the intention of its being sold for phar¬ 
maceutical purposes, and not for the manufacture of 
quinine. The remainder appears to be Pahudiana 
(but it may perhaps be called Hasskarliana), and 
brought a higher price, averaging about 2s. 14^. En- 
ghsh money. I do not think, however, that any 
manufacturer of quinine would invest his money in 
this. As far as my information goes, there has been 
as yet no production of bark fitted for the manu¬ 
facture of quinine, with the exception, perhaps, of 
one sample which resembled both in appearance and 
in quahty one of the Calisaya layers of the French (the 
product, I beheve, of the C. micrantha Calisayoides, 
of Dr. WeddeH’s new classification). It was con¬ 
sequently a poor and very second-rate bark, although 
the best from Java. The C. Hasskarliana of Miquel 
is, according to Dr. de Vrij, the result of the inter¬ 
ference of the pollen of C. Pahudiana with the C. 
Calisaya. Professor Miquel makes it a new species. 
On this I give no opinion, but I am pleased to see 
that the C. Pahudiana, with its congeners, is proving 
itself worthy of the character I gave it, as likely to 
be found useful as a medicine. Of this I have an 
additional confirmation in the examination of a good- 
looking sample of bark called C. Pahudiana, just 
brought into the EngHsh market from the plantation 
of a gentleman in Ceylon. This contains a fair por¬ 
tion both of quinine and cinchonidine, and is Hkely 
to prove a good bark for pharmaceutical purposes. 
M. Van Gorkom concludes his official report for 
1864 with the following words:—“ Until now the 
different reports concerning the cultivation of Chin- 
cliona have thrown more darkness than Hght on the 
subject, and consequently the credit of this great 
undertaking has suffered.” 
It would be greatly to the satisfaction of the ma¬ 
nufacturers of quinine, if this gentleman would throw 
Hght upon the question, what prospect six years of 
additional experience enable him now to hold out as 
to any possible supply of their wants from this quar¬ 
ter in the future ? 
* Probably C. pulescens, subspecies C. Pelletierina, if the 
deep green colour attributed to the leaves is correctly repre¬ 
sented. 
