ON  THE  TREE  PRODUCING  RED  CINCHONA  BARK. 
37 
This  seems  to  have  been  a  most  felicitous  designation  thus  con- 
ferred by  anticipation  by  this  excellent  botanist,  who  has  done 
so  much  to  illustrate  the  history  of  this  invaluable  genus.  This 
variety  will  in  future  be,  in  all  probability,  regarded  as  affording 
the  true  red  bark  of  commerce,  of  which  it  is  well  known  there  is 
but  one  sort  which  passes  current  and  obtains  a  high  price, 
whilst  other  samples  (however  red  in  appearance),  which  proceed 
from  .(7  micrantha,  var.  rotundifolia,*  or  from  0.  scrobiculata* 
or  O.  pubescens,  or  even  from  a  variety  of  C.  lancifolia,  are  not 
at  all  received  as  "red  bark,"  but  are  regarded  as  "  spurious," 
and  the  price  is  low  in  proportion. 
I  cannot,  therefore,  coincide  with  M.  Guibourt  in  the  opinion 
which  Dr.  W.  appears  at  one  time  to  have  derived  from  him, 
that  commercial  red  bark  is  the  produce  of  a  variety  of  trees. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  am  glad  to  agree  fully  with  the  opinion 
of  this  able  professor,  as  given  in  his  Histoire  Naturelle 
des  Drogues  Simples,  that  the  Quinquina  rouge  vrai  non 
verruquex  (viz.,  that  of  the  branches),  and  the  quinquina  rouge 
verruquex  (that  of  the  trunk  and  roots),  constitute  together  the 
true  red  bark  of  commerce. 
M.  Guibourt  adds  (and  I  think  his  observations  are  very  im- 
portant, as  determining  the  next  question  which  presents  itself 
to  our  view) : — 
"  I  have  shown  before  how  this  bark  has  been,  according  to  false  indica- 
tions of  Mutis,  attributed  to  the  Cinchona  oblongifolia.  This  error  was 
only  discovered  when  Humboldt  had  brought  into  Europe  the  pretended 
<  red  bark'  of  Mutis,  or  the  bark  of  Cinchona  oblongifolia.  The  error 
was  first  discovered  in  Germany  by  Schrader  and  De  Bergen,  who  found 
that  the  red  bark  of  Mutis,  or  the  bark  of  C.  oblongifolia,  was  that  which 
bore  in  Europe  the  name  of  Quinquina  nova.  To  the  irresistible  proofs 
which  these  two  authors  have  given  I  will  add — 1.  That  the  red  bark  of 
Mutis  deposited  by  Humboldt  in  the  Museum  of  Natural  History  at  Paris, 
is  nothing  else  but  Quinquina  nova.  2nd.  That  three  samples  examined 
by  Vauquelin  under  the  following  denominations:  No.  2,  Quinquina  de 
Santa  Fe;  No.  10,  Cinchona  magnifolia ;  No.  16,  Quinquina  rouge  de 
Santa  Fe  ;  were  Quinquina  nova,  shown  to  be  such  by  the  characters  of 
the  bark  and  by  the  chemical  qualities  of  the  macerating  liquors.  Thus 
nothing  is  better  proved  than  this  fact,  that  the  Cinchona  oblongifolia 
or  magnifolia  produces  the  Quinquina  nova  and  not  the  true  red  bark." 
*  These  two  sorts  illustrated  by  samples  gathered  by  Dr.  Weddell. 
