Am.  Jour.  P>'  arm. ) 
Jan.,  ISS-l.  j 
Red  Bark. 
2d 
allied  to  the  ciuchoiit^.  I  have  recently  met  with  specimens  of  the  bark  of 
two  of  these,  together  witli  leaves,  and,  in  one  case,  very  well  preserved 
capsules,  evidently  of  the  Cinchona  pedunculata.  Karsten ;  the  other  I 
referred,  with  less  certainty,  to  another  of  his  species,  C.  undata^  Krs. 
I  was  informed  that  neither  of  these  barks,  when  examined  by  Dr.  Paul, 
manifested  any  trace  of  alkaloid.  Is  not  this  a  reason  (if  confirmed)  for 
the  limitation  of  the  term  cinchona  to  those  plants  which,  having  the 
cai)sules  dehiscent  from  the  base,  also  possess  the  medicinal  properties  from 
which  the  name  is  derived?    To  these  alone  it  seems  properly  to  belong. 
Wlien  we  come  to  the  definition  o'f  sj^ecies  the  diflftculty  of  discrimina- 
tion increases  so  much  that  some  (even  of  tliose  who  are  interested  in  the 
cultivation)  seem  inclined  to  throw  up  the  whole  subject  in  despair,  and  to 
believe  in  unlimited  hybridity  and  change  instead  of  that  exact  fixednes& 
of  type  which,  at  all  events  since  the  researches  of  the  early  Spanish 
botanists,  have  marked  the  South  American  species.  Pavon,  especially, 
was  very  careful  in  his  selection  of  specimens,  so  that  out  of  forty-one 
sorts  which  I  possess  of  his  collection  I  am  able  to  recognize  at  least  twenty- 
eight  as  met  with  in  commerce,  and  as  like  as  if  they  came  off  the  same 
trees. 
I  have  thus  found  amongst  the  barks  of  commerce  the  bark  of  most  of 
the  sjDecies  described  by  Pavon  and  his  associates,  and  by  Mutis  and  Zea, 
exactly  reproduced  with  every  minute  feature.  I  have  had  the  satisfac- 
tion of  cultivating  many  and  of  receiving  specimens  from  the  native  habi- 
tats and  the  adopted  countries  of  many  others,  and  my  conclusion  is  that 
fixity  of  type  is  the  rule,  and  variability  the  exception.  I  do  not  deny 
tliat  this  latter  occurs  (through  hybridity)  in  India,  but  I  agree  with  the 
late  Dr.  Weddell  in  thinking  that  there  is  not  usually  much  opportunity 
for  this  in  South  America.  I  can  add  that  Dr.  Weddell's  specimens  are 
admirably  true  to  type. 
Even  in  India  the  probability  is  that  many  of  tlie  variations  observed 
are  connected  with  the  following  characteristics,  observed  first  by  the 
Spanish  botanists,  and  which  I  will  now  briefly  explain. 
All  the  different  species  of  cinchona,  so  far  as  observed,  exist  under  dif- 
ferent, slightly  varying  forms,  of  which  it  seems  impossible  to  say  that  any 
one  is  the  original  species  and  the  others  varieties.  For  instance,  I  have 
now, 'growing  from  seeds  gathered  by  the  diligent  collector,  Robert  Cross, 
two  form4  of  the  Cinchona  corclifoUa^  from  two  different  localities,  one  of 
which,  from  a  place  called  Coralis  Inza,  possesses  the  true  cordate  form  of 
leaf  as  represented  by  Karsten  in  his  plate  of  Cinchona  cordifolia, ;  the  other, 
though  equally  in  its  marked  characteristics  the  "hard  Carthagena"  or 
"cordifolia"  bark  of  Mutis,  does  not  yet  show  one  leaf  true  to  the  type. 
The  Coralis  Inza  form  is  much  richer  in  quinine,  and  has  consequently 
(at  my  recommendation)  been  transplanted  by  Mr.  Cross  to  India,  where 
I  h<)j)e  it  may  prosper  and  perhaps  be  found  useful. 
Having  premised  these  observations,  I  now  come  to  the  (piestion  of  "red 
bark,"  of  whi(5h  the  true  species  is,  as  deflned  by  Pavon,  the  Cinchona 
miccirufrra,  i^o  Ukuned  by  this  botanist  from  the  j)eculiarities  of  the  ////cc, 
which  he  defines  as  follows: 
"  In  arboreuirj  corticum(iue  ami)utatione  succum  lacteum  i)rimum  pro- 
