Aiii.Jcur.  riiarm.) 
Jan.,  1882.  / 
Rid  Baric. 
33 
eiice  in  the  two  diftbreiit  barks,  as  tested  by  ditlereiit  reagents.  I  am  not 
aware  that  either  in  one  ease  or  the  other  any  medicinal  inquiry  lias  taken 
place.  The  same  observation  may  be  made  as  to  the  remaining  constitu- 
ents of  the  C.  suecirubra  and  the  C.  officinalis,  in  the  former  case  much 
more  complicated  than  in  the  latter. 
The  supply  of  cultivated  bark  from  South  America  will  probably  go 
entirely  into  the  hands  of  the  quinine  manufacturers.  This  may  also  be 
the  case  with  the  best  of  the  C.  officinalis,  but  much  of  what  is  cultivated 
is  of  an  inferior  description. 
I  will  not  add  anything  respecting  the  relative  constituents  in  alkaloids, 
})ut  conclude  with  an  observation  of  Lord  Bacon  (({uoted  l)y  Dr.  Kentish, 
one  of  the  early  writers  [1784]  on  Peruvian  bark),  that  mankind  are  far 
too  apt  to  contemplate  nature  as  if  from  the  top  of  a  tower,  without  descend- 
ing to  the  investigation  of  details.^ 
Practically,  however,  the  substitution  of  theory  for  scientific  investiga- 
tion is  sure  to  lead  to  very  unsatisfactory  results. 
In  the  i^resent  instance  we  have  the  following  confusion  : 
AVhen  "Red  Bark"  is  spoken  or  written  about,  it  may  be  the  produce  of 
(A)  .  C.  suecirubra.    a.  Glabrous  form.        Subpubescent  form,  or — 
(B)  .  C.  coeeinea,  Pavon  (?).    Pato  de  Galllnazo,  or — 
(C)  .  "  Pubescent"  sort  of  Howard,  or — 
(D)  .  C.  conglomerata,  Pavon,  case,  coloracla,  i)roduciiig,  accoriliug  to 
Cross,  the  moracla  sort  of  Red  Bark,  of  which  I  send  specimen  [G],  or— 
(E)  .  C.  erythrantha,  Pav.  (?),  case,  cuchicara. 
Appendix. 
[JRemarks  written  by  R.  Spruce  on  my  Quinologla.  NotuUe  ad  Quin- 
olofjlani  novam  Spectanda:,  It  >S'"] 
Cinchona. 
"  C.  eoceinea,  Pav.,  Pato  di  Gallinazo  (Ecuador). — Plainly  the  true  Fata 
di  (jcdlinazo  of  the  (iuitensian  Andes,  and  seen  by  me  in  the  very  same 
localities  (Chillanes,  Guaranda),  also  in  vallej^s  of  Pallatanza  and  Alausi. 
I  could  not  distinguish  it  by  the  leaves  alone  from  the  Cuchicara  growing 
along  with  it,  but  the  Indians  say  they  can  always  tell  it.  Its  bark  has 
some  commercial  value,  that  of  the  cuchicara  none.  The  two  agree  in  the 
very  stout  leaf  veins,  the  corymbose  inflorescence  and  the  dull  scarlet  or 
brick-red  color  of  the  flowers,  (luite  difterent  from  the  red  or  roseate  hue  of 
the  flowers  of  most  other  cinchona?. 
C.  erythrantha,  Pav.,  compared  with  the  Pcda  di  Gallinazo  by  Pavon 
himself,  is  probably  true  cuchicara.  The  acute  vencUion  and  tlie  locality 
(hill  forests  of  (Tluaya({uil  and  Jaen)  seem  to  conflrm  this  view. 
"  C.  conylonierata,  Par.— Excejit  for  the  elongated  panicle,  this  much 
resenibles  a  pubescent  form  of  the  cuchicara.'''' 
[Extract  from.  ^^JVueva  Quinoloyia,^^  C.  suecirubra,  p.  14.] 
"  Jn  the  red  bark  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  tlie  brick-red  color,  which  as 
Ruiz  observes,  is  not  found  in  tlie  growing  plant,  but  in  the  dried  bark,  is 
1  Solent  anteiu  lidihiin'S  naturam  tanqiiam  ex  ])r8ealtatinii  ct  ;i,  longe  ilcspiccre,  et  circa  gencraliii 
liiniiuiii  occuijaii:  tjiiando,  hi  ilt'sccml^re  placiiit,  et  ail  iiarticiilaria  acciclcie,  i('«ijn<'  iii.-^as  attciitius  cl; 
(iiligtntiuK  innpicere,  uiaj^is  vera  et  utilis  f<iiet  l  oiniirdiengio. — L.  ii,  cap.  1. 
8 
