-Am.. lour.  Pharm. } 
Jan.,  1882  | 
Bed  Bark 
37 
of  another  part  is  unknown.  A  notable  example  of  this  is  found  in  tlie 
graft.  Here  two  plants  differing  in  their  nature  are  i^laced  in  the  closest 
combination,  yet  in  the  experience  of  upwards  of  two  thousand  years,  and 
with  almost  every  species  of  plant,  the  stock  has  not  been  found  to  com- 
municate to  the  graft,  or  the  graft  to  the  stock,  in  the  minutest  degree,  any 
of  those  subtle  influences  on  which  depend  the  size  and  flavor  of  the  fruit, 
or  the  color  of  a  flower,  both  the  stock  and  graft  retaining  through  their 
existence  their  respective  qualities;  though  the  stock  is  built  up  )jy  the  sap 
elaborated  by  the  leaves  of  the  graft,  and  the  graft  supplied  with  its  nour- 
ishment through  the  roots  of  the  stock.  Moreover,  if  the  alkaloids  are 
transferred,  they  are  not  transferred  in  the  same  conditions,  especially  so 
in  red  barks,  as  we  find  renewed  red  bark  very  rich  in  (juinine,  and  this 
on  trees  where  the  natural  bark  contains  scarcely  any  quinine." 
Ootacamund^- August  16,  1875. 
"Of  C.  2^ubescens  \\Q  lA'cinied  on  private  plantations  20  acres  last  year, 
and  this  year  we  planted  out  (JO  acres  of  this  plant  on  the  Kartary  estate. 
"  I  have  another  seedling  raised  with  the  same  batch  of  hybrids,  which 
promises  to  be  better  than  C.  jmhescens,  at  least,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able 
to  ascertain,  it  yields  nearly  10  per  cent,  of  sulphate  of  quinine ;  but  I  shall 
send  si^ecimens  of  this  variety  and  of  the  bark  also.  We  have  only  a  few 
plants  of  this  kind,  and  I  overlooked  it  in  my  investigations  of  last  3'ear. 
It  is  not  unlike  No.  3  of  De  Vrij's  analysis,  but  has  a  more  oblong  leaf." 
I  did  not  receive  the  above-mentioned  specimens,  and  consequently  am 
without  the  means  of  identifying  the  three  sorts  mentioned  above. 
The  tree  which  Mr.  Mclvor  sent  me  proved  to  be  quite  different  in  the 
bark,  and  I  judge  of  no  value.  J^ome  mistake  had  occurred  and  this  threw 
me  off  the  scent  and  led  me  to  give  credence  to  the  theory  of  hybridization 
which  is  easily  called  in  (like  some  other  theories)  to  satisfy  ininds  that  do 
Jiot  desire  the  labor  of  really  fathoming  difficult  questions. 
It  will  be  seen  by  what  follows  that  the  theory'  of  hybridization  must  be 
set  aside,  in  this  case  at  least. 
I  do  not  find  any  further  reference  in  letters  from  Mr.  Mclvor  except 
in  one  received  after  his  return  from  Ceylon,  which  journey  led  to  his 
lamented  decease.    In  this  letter  he  speaks  of  its  coming  true  from  seed. 
{From  Colonel  Beddome.) 
"  The  mighlris,  June  24,  18S1. 
"We  have  a  very  valuable  si^ecies  here  in  what  Howard  calls  offieinalis, 
v'ciY.  pubescens.  There  are  two  varieties,  one  (piite  glabrous  on  the  under 
surface  of  the  leaf,  known  here  as  magnifoUa^  and  the  other  very  downy, 
called  pubescens.  They  were  both  supposed  to  be  hybrids  of  Nilghiri 
origin,  but  they  are  no  hybrids.*  I  find  them  in  our  oldest  plantations. 
(  'rosssayshe  recognizes  the  glabrous  one  as  the  Pata  de  Gallinazo''^  of 
the  bark  collectors  on  the  Chimborazo,  and  that  he  found  it  at  a  much 
higher  elevation  than  sUccirubra,  and  it  grows  here  at  a  nuich  higher  ele- 
vation than  Huccirubra,  growing  splendidly  at  over  7,000  feet,  where  succi- 
rubra  will  not  grow  at  tdl. 
"Two  bales  of  this  sold  last  month  in  England  at  a  higher  price  tlian 
iiny  officinalis  ;  it  was  tiie  best  we  have  sent  Iiouk-.    'JMiere  is  another  dis- 
