50 
ON THE AMOUNT OF ALKALOIDS IN CINCHONA BARK. 
There is, I believe, no doubt that this is the same sort of bark which was 
given by M. Delondre to Dr. de Vry, described by him as the root-bark of C- 
land folia, and from which Dr. de Vry obtained 8*66 per cent, of alkaloid. If I 
understand rightly, this identity is admitted on all sides ; but the questions 
remain,—First, is it the produce of C. lancifolia (Mutis) ? Second, is it root- 
bark at all? As to the first question, it is certainly an error to identify the 
C. Pitayensis with the C. lancifolia (Mutis). I send a drawing of the C. 
Pitayensis , which was made by Air. Fitch from specimens gathered by Air. 
Jervise, and now found in the herbarium of Sir William J. Hooker, at Kew. 
They comprise the roja , or red, and naranjada , or orange, varieties,* and are 
accompanied by characteristic specimens of the bark of these two sorts. Between 
these no botanical difference that I am aware of can be traced, and both consti¬ 
tute a species markedly distinct from the C. lancifolia (Mutis),f which has been 
very well figured both by Weddell and Karsten ; whilst the C. Pitayensis has 
never till now been represented, as far as my knowledge extends, although it is 
certainly one of the very best kinds of Chinchona, and far superior to the C. 
lancifolia (Mutis), which last has been for a long time almost entirely neglected 
by the collectors. 
In the next place, is it root-bark? I presume not, as Cross never intimates 
anything of the kind respecting the specimen bark which he sent home. The 
appearance of the bark, which is peculiar, might most readily correspond to that 
which would be produced by shrubs, growing high up the mountains, and in so 
low a temperature as is above described. This is exactly the climate and circum¬ 
stances to favour the production of quinine in the bark, as has been well shown 
by Dr. Karsten, and exemplified also in the Calisaya of St. Fe in particular. 
No doubt the Indian Cascarilleros may strip roots and all, and mix these with the 
bark, and, in the fragmentary condition in which it comes, it is impossible to 
distinguish the bark of the different parts of the plant; but the extraordinary 
produce I must persist in believing to be due to the circumstances above-named, 
and not to that of its being root-bark, which, as regards the great bulk of the 
collection, I do not believe. 
Whilst compelled to differ on this point, I most willingly bear my testimony 
to the great value of the table given in last month’s Pharmaceutical by Dr. de 
Vry. The exactness and fidelity with which these able researches are repro¬ 
duced, enable all persons to form their own conclusions, and to me the results 
seem to indicate a general inferiority in the root-bark, as compared with the 
trunk of the Calisaya. 
ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF ALKALOIDS 
IN CINCHONA BARK. 
BY DR. J. E. DE VRY. 
Although there exist many methods of ascertaining the amount of alkaloids 
in the cinchona bark, my connection with the cinchona cultivation in Java 
compelled me to select one which would not only afford comparable results, 
but one in particular which would yield the different alkaloids as they are con¬ 
tained in the bark , without alteration from the chemicals used for their extraction. 
It appeared to me that the method described by my friend A. Delondre^ 
* I have also from Paris the morada and blanca varieties exhibited in sections of branches, 
hut not in flowers or fruit. 
f I have specimens given by Mutis to Bonpland, and presented by the authorities of the 
Museum of the Jardin des Plantes ; also an excellent specimen gathered by Dr. Karsten. 
X Delondre et Bouchardat, £ Quinologic/ p. 44. 
