36 
Bed  Bark. 
f  Ani.Jonr.  I'liarui. . 
"(       Jan.,  1882. 
(wliic-li  I  think  is  very  well  named)  i»r()dnce.s  so  mnch  einclionidino ;  but 
as  this  alkaloid  is  risinj^  in  the  market  and  in  public  esteem,  in  a  few  years 
this  objection  may  diminish,  but  5-50  of  ({uinine  is,  I  concluded,  a  bark 
that  will  always  command  the  attention  of  manufacturers. 
"  Although  C.  jnibesccm  is  a  mere  variety,  still,  it  comes  true  from  seed, 
and  I  have  not  noticed  any  seedling  of  the  hairy  variety  produce  the 
smooth  leaved  variety,  so  closely  allied  to  it,  or  vice  I'ey.sa." 
"  Ootacamund^  June  27,  1874. 
"  I  had  great  pleasure  to  receive  your  letter  of  the  29th  ult.,  and  will  have 
much  pleasure  in  sending  you  dried  specimens  of  the  6'.p«6esce?is,  and  the 
kindred  smooth  leaved  variety,  as  soon  as  I  am  able  to  get  them.  At  pre- 
sent the  plants  are  out  of  flower  and  we  are  in  the  middle  of  our  rains  and 
enveloped  in  mists.  The  pubescens  is,  I  think,  intermediate  between  C 
sucetrubra  and  C\  officinalis^  but  partakes  more  of  the  officinalis  type.  It 
is  a  much  more  robust  growth  than  either,  and  in  all  situations  far  out- 
tops  the  succirubra.  I  send  you  a  few  seeds  which,  I  have  no  doubt,  you 
will  lind  come  up  quite  true,  as  it  does  not  vary  very  much  when  raised 
from  seed,  when  the  plants  from  which  the  seeds  are  collected  are  kept  sep- 
arate from  other  kinds. 
I  take  the  liberty  of  again  sending  you  some  bark  of  C.  pubescens.  The 
bark  is  the  narrow  strip  left  on  the  same  tree  from  which  I  took  the  bark 
sent  to  you  in  December  last.  If  not  giving  you  too  much  trouble,  I  would 
very  much  like  to  know  what  this  bark  yields ;  the  more  as  Mr.  Brough- 
ton  and  Dr.  Biddle  have  been  trying  to  impress  on  the  government  here, 
that  mossing  does  not  improve  the  bark  on  the  trees  generally,  but  that 
the  renewing  bark  drains  the  alkaloids  from  the  natural  bark  adjoin- 
ing, /.  f.,  that  the  alkaloids  in  the  natural  bark  are  transferred  to  the 
renewing  bark. 
"  I  do  not  believe  this  to  be  the  case ;  but  if  it  is  so,  in  any  degree,  the 
bark  now  sent  you  will  show  exactly  to  what  extent  this  takes  place,  as 
the  narrow  strips  of  bark  were  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  renewing  bark. 
I  send  a  small  specimen  of  the  renewed  l)ark,  also  taken  from  the  same 
species  as  the  bark  sent  you." 
[The  strips^  like  the  original  bark,  presented  the  ai)pearauce  of  thick 
tine  bark,  and  gave  even  better  results  than  those  gathered  seven  months 
before,  thus  completely  dispelling  the  transference  hypothesis.] 
The  analysis  was  as  follows  : 
Sulphate  of  Quinine,  .            .            .  (3-94 
"          Cinchonidine,  .            .  4'48 
"          Cinchonine,  .            .            .  0-20 
"  .        Quinidine,    .  .            .  ()'14 
Amorphous  Alkaloid,  .*          .  .1*14 
12-9() 
Mr.  Mclvor  continues : 
"  This  theory  of  the  transference  of  alkaloids  has  been  got  up,  I  believe,, 
to  impress  on  our  government  the  disadvantage  of  mossing,  but  even  if  the 
alkaloids  are  transferred  we  would  not  lose  anything.  But  the  transfer- 
ence of  any  material  once  deposited  in  one  part  of  a  vegetable  tissue  to  that 
