ON  THE  SOURCE  OF  BALSAM  OF  PERU. 
301 
parison  represents  most  of  the  leaflets  in  my  specimen.  This 
then  affords  no  ground  again  for  the  creation  of  a  new  species. 
The  idea  has  been  suggested  to  some  pharmacologists,  that  as 
the  species  described  by  the  botanists  mentioned  were  derived 
from  different  sections,  both  Central  and  South  American,  there 
must  be  diversity  on  this  account.  It  does  not  appear  that 
there  is  any  force  in  this  argument  in  connection  with  the  bo- 
tanical history,  and  we  are  coerced  to  fall  back  upon  strictly 
scientific  characteristics.  Thus  it  has  been  alleged  that  Mutis 
explored  the  northern  portion  of  the  continent  of  South  Ame- 
rica, and  his  labors  were  mostly  confined  to  that  section.  But 
Mutis  was  an  indefatigable  botanist,  and  "  Director  of  the 
Botanical  Expedition  of  the  Kingdom  of  New  Granada,"  at 
Bogota,  sufficiently  close  to  the  country  of  the  Balsam  trees  to 
procure  specimens  and  information  through  numerous  agents 
and  pupils.  There  is  no  reason  as  yet  given  us  why  the  M. 
Peruiferum  is  not  found  in  New  Granada,  although  the  Balsam 
of  Peru  is  not  an  article  of  production.  In  fact,  if  M.  Weddell 
found  the  same  plant,  i.  e.,  the  M.  Peruiferum,  Kunth,  in  Bolivia, 
as  stated  by  Guibourt,  the  geographical  difficulty  is  removed. 
From  the  foregoing  observations  we  have  arrived  at  the  fol- 
lowing conclusions : 
1.  That  Pereira's  plant  and  our  own  are  identical. 
2.  That  this  plant  is  the  Myroxylon  Peruiferum  of  Linnaeus. 
3.  That  it  is  the  Myrospermum  Peruiferum  of  Kunth  and  D.  C. 
There  are  some  further  points  to  be  settled  with  respect  to 
this  interesting  genus,  involving  the  origin  of  the  Balsam  of 
Tolu. 
Very  truly  yours,  J.  Carson. 
Philadelphia,  June  12th,  1860, 
