16 OBSEllVATIONS ON OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE GENUS CINCHONA. 
represented not only in the widely-dispersed herbarium of Pavon, but also by 
specimens sent home by Cross, both of a flowering branch and of the barb, from 
the Eavines of Cajamuna, near Loja, in 1861. The seeds sent home by this 
collector have vegetated well in India, and so successful has been, the cultiva¬ 
tion, that MTvor has already sent home bark fit for the English market, accord¬ 
ing to the estimation of the most competent judges. The plant is figured and 
described in Howard’s ‘ Illustrations of the ISTueva Quinologia ’ as a variety of 
Chalivargnera^ which name might very well be exchanged for the above. 
y. Bonplcmdicma-lutea. —These two sorts are probably merely the macho and 
hembra varieties (those in which the male or female element preponderates in 
the flovv'cr, etc.) of the same plant, but the barks produced are markedly different, 
and these differences have remained unchanged from Pavon’s day to this. They 
both deserve well their old reputation, and, though scarce, are still found in 
commerce ; growing together Pavon says, and often coming together (some¬ 
times intermingled) to the English market; but, though so nearly allied, not 
confused by insensible transition.^' 
Cinchona officinalis^ b. crispa. —This form of Loja bark was described and 
named by Tafalla as Cinchona crispa^ and is described by Mr. Howard under 
that head in his ‘ Quinologia.’ Nevertheless it is his opinion that it is so mani¬ 
festly one of the forms of the Loja bark as to be best looked upon as above. It 
is the Quina crespilla^ or carrasquena of the older botanists, and the Quina ffina 
de Loja of modern trade. 
The plant was found growing by Cross in a deposit of peat on the summit of 
the highest mountains (the Sierra Grande) around Loja. These Loja barks are 
adapted to grow on the roughest and most elevated portions of the Neilgherries, 
and also to flourish in Ceylon, and, beyond other sorts, to bear well the climate 
of the sub-Himalayan ranges, and there can be little doubt of their successful 
and profitable cultivation. 
Dr. Seemann found the plant at a lower elevation, and excellent specimens 
were brought back by both these travellers, including the bark, concerning the 
source of which therefore no doubt can remain. 
It is to be regretted that from the present confusion of nomenclature in India, 
it is difficult to ascertain what is meant by the descriptive terms there applied 
to the barks. If the above arrangement could be admitted, it would greatly 
simplify the matter, and be practically useful in its results. 
Mr. Howard proceeds to a review of the grey barks of Huanuco, the red 
barks of Ecuador, the Pitayo barks of Popayan, and the lancifolia barks of New 
Granada, which will be published in the Proceedings of the Congress, and 
directs attention to the spelling of the name Cinchona, or Ciiinciiona, and 
to the allied genus Cascamlla, or as called by the Germans Ladenbekgia. 
Nothing would tend so well to settle these questions as the free expression of 
opinion at a botanical congress. 
In conclusion, the writer expresses his opinion, that every well-defined region 
of the Andes has its own prevalent and characteristic Cinchonse, which are in¬ 
capable of being reduced to any one typical form; he believes that no species 
has been clearly proved to prevail unchanged from end to end of the cincho- 
naceous region, and thinks that forms which resemble each other in distant 
jiarts will be found analogous rather than identical. 
Dr. Weddell, after the reading of Mr. Howard’s paper, assigned reasons 
for adhering to the Linnsean form Cinchona, to which Mr. Howard subse¬ 
quently gave his assent. 
Darwin has shown, in an able paper coininnnicated to the Linnean Societj' on another 
family of plants, that the form of the flower is either entirely maeJio, or entirely liemhra, 
not i)as.sing; from one into the other. 
