3(52 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [November 4,1871. 
branches to set against a total of 132 oz. of branches 
in the former, or more than ten times the amount. 
The weight of the trunk itself proves to he in each 
case about 50 per cent, above that of the roots. I 
am not able to state the comparative weight of the 
bark of the two trees, which could not be relnoved 
without spoiling the specimens, except a portion of 
the G. suceirubra for chemical examination. It is 
thicker in the C. officinalis. This tree is said to be 
five years old. 
It is important to remark that this rapid develop¬ 
ment of the succinthra by no mean's necessarily 
implies a corresponding success in the cultivation of 
this species. If the quinine found in the bark of 
the C. officinalis prove to be three times the amount 
in the same time, and of purer quality than in the 
C. sued rubra, and supposing the relative weight of 
the bark to be the same, the preferential price would 
be given for the one-third weight of G. officinalis. 
The average of a parcel of G. suceirubra recently 
cut, and now coming home, is, I am informed, under 
1 per cent., but the average of the G'. officinalis com¬ 
ing in the same parcel is over 3 per cent, of sulphate 
of quinine. 
At the first sight I was struck with the general re¬ 
semblance of the external aspect of the two trees to 
the same sorts grown in their native climate. This 
was especially the case with the C. officinalis, which 
seems in all respects to be the exact reproduction of 
the plant named by Pavon Cinchona (Jritusinga, 
but which has now been restored by Dr. Hooker to the 
old Linnean designation. It will be seen on exami¬ 
nation of the marked and peculiar rugose bark of the 
two specimens placed side b} r side—one gathered by 
Pavon one hundred years since in South America, 
the other recently cut in India—that even in colour 
and the adherent lichens they are as much the same 
as if they had been taken from the same tree. This 
is the more remarkable, because the other forms of 
the Loja bark are remarkably and characteristically 
different. I lay some stress on tills, because it ap¬ 
peal's to me that such permanent characteristics as 
the bark affords should always be taken into account 
in the botanical discrimination of these otherwise 
nearly allied forms. 
A second general observation presented itself on 
closer inspection, namely, the occurrence on the 
lower part of the trunk of each tree of a peculiar 
white fungus occupying the crevices of the bark; 
and, as I afterwards found, penetrating into the 
very wood itself, and occupying cracks and fissures 
in the same. I look upon this as a very bad indica¬ 
tion; and, judging from the analogy of beecli-trees 
similarly affected in plantations here, should regard 
it as an almost fatal sign. I hope that it does not 
generally occur in the Indian plantations, but that 
its accidental existence in these trees may, in part, 
have led to their selection for the purpose of eradi¬ 
cation. I present to the Society a portion of bark 
of the under part of the stem of a Calisaya tree 
grown in Java, and “infected by mycelium.” This 
arose, as is well known, from the decaying portions 
of old roots and trunks of the uprooted forest, in 
place of which the cinchona-trees were expected to 
flourish. I do not know whether the same or a 
different cause may have led to the existence of this 
fungus on the trees at Ootacamund. Mr. MTvor 
explained this evil to me as arising from the earth 
being heaped up for some inches around the base of 
the trunk, in which case it may have had a simply 
local origin. It is well known that all the cinchonai 
are impatient of water at the roots, and if the water 
lodges in the least in the subsoil (Mr. Clarke re¬ 
marks at Darjeeling), although it may be a place 
where there is an excellent fall and surface drainage, 
there is a bald patch in the plantation.* I should 
certainly look to the roots. 
I now turn to the results of chemical examination. 
My attention had been arrested by a passage,! in 
which, after speaking of the permanence of the alka¬ 
loids in the bark after it has been removed from the 
tree, Mr. Broughton remarks, “in very singular 
contrast to this is the fact, that quinine and cinclio- 
nicline are not to be found in the bark of trees that 
have been dead a short time. 
My own experiments with barks that have been 
a century in tins country leads me to suppose that no 
change whatever had taken place in the alkaloids, 
and I was naturally anxious to ascertain what could 
lead to such a result as we have been contemplating. 
Has the plant, I said to myself, withdrawn these 
alkaloids in order that they might be turned to other 
account in the failing health of the plant ? Mr. 
Broughton also, in a private letter to myself, speak¬ 
ing of the trees sent, says, “I am a little doubtful 
whether the quality of the bark will not be damaged 
by allowing it to dry on the tree, since I find that if 
a tree dies from any cause, its bark loses its alka¬ 
loids in a few weeks.” 
I therefore, on receipt of the trees, separated 
enough of the bark of the C. suceirubra to ascertain 
this point, and soon satisfied myself that no such 
injurious action had taken place in this case ; pro¬ 
bably because the sudden death of the tree prevented 
any abnormal circulation. The bark yielded me 
3‘5-i per cent, of alkaloids, of which only 0‘82 proved 
to be quinine, the rest cinchonidine and cinchonine, 
—the former pure and good, as will be seen by the 
sample shown; the latter, on the contrary, losing 
much weight in refining. The bark, in fact, resem¬ 
bled that taken from similar trees in the ordinary 
method. 
The bark of the roots I have not had the oppor¬ 
tunity of examining. It is so thin, and adheres with 
so much pertinacity to the wood, that it would seem 
lost labour to attempt its separation in any quantity 
in the dried state, whatever may he the case when 
the roots are freshly removed from the earth. 
The examination of the heart-wood yielded me re- 
suits analogous to that from South America, with 
this exception, that I found less cincho-tannic acid 
than in the wood from South America, and also a 
small portion of chlorophyll, which I have before 
noted in the young wood from India, as the result, 
perhaps, of a vigorous circulation not yet fully settled 
into the mature state of the tree. This may also 
account for a less specific gravity. I found (by 
ether) the same resinous-looking yellow substance 
which I have described in my ‘ East Indian Quino- 
logy.’ This is capable of being split into chinova- 
bitter and cincho-tannic acid, and consequently, by 
treatment with alkalies, productive of cincliona-red, 
the proportion of which seems to be less in the red 
bark of India. The chinova-bitter obtained is pure 
and abundant. 
I hope that the examination of the leaves may 
* Report, 1st July, 1870. 
f Return, No. 432, 9tli August, 1870, p. 241. 
