Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  \ 
May,  1875.  ; 
Cinchona  or  Chine hona. 
Ill 
"  6th  June,  1773. — Mutis  here  acknowledges  the  receipt  from  Lin- 
naeus of  certain  works  of  the  latter,  and  expresses  his  pleasure  at  the 
honorabl  e  mention  of  himself  by  Linnaeus  under  the  head  of  Cin- 
chona ;  and  he  also  refers  to  a  small  present  which  he  transmits  by 
Don  Ruiz-Pavon,  who  is  going  to  Upsala. 
"  8th  Feb.,  1777. — This  letter  contains  notes  on  some  plants  sent 
by  Mutis  to  Linnaeus,  one  of  them  being  entered  as  Cinchona  Bogotensis. 
"  1 2th  Sept.,  1778. — A  long  letter  of  condolence  from  Mutis  to  the 
younger  Linnaeus.  It  contains  the  following  passage  :  Maxime  disto 
a  solo  natali  Cinchonae  officinalis  a  me  detectae,  cujus  viciniis  crescit 
etiam  Mutisia.' 
"  In  none  of  these  letters  is  there  a  hint  of  disapprobation  of  the 
name  Cinchona,  which  it  will  be  noticed  that  Mutis  adopts,  immediately 
he  finds  it  used  by  Linnaeus. 
"  Mr.  Markham  asserts  that  the  error  was  pointed  out  by  Ruiz  and 
Pavon.  But  surely  he  cannot  be  conversant  with  the  '  Quinologia  '  of 
Ruiz,  published  at  Madrid  in  1792,  or  with  the  '  Suplemento,'  which 
appeared,  under  the  joint  authorship  of  Ruiz  and  Pavon,  nine  years  later, 
in  neither  of  which  works  is  the  name  of  Linnaeus's  genus  written 
otherwise  than  Cinchona.  Mr.  Markham  must  be  also  unaware  that  in 
the  '  Flora  Peruviana  et  Chilensis  '  of  Ruiz  and  Pavon,  the  name  in 
dispute  is  uniformly  written  Cinchona,  and  never  Chinchona.  Pavon, 
indeed,  in  his  later  years  is  stated  by  Howard  to  have  pleaded  for  the 
word  Chinchona.  This  was  done  in  his  '  Nueva  Quinologia,'  a  work 
written  between  1821  and  1826,  but  which  never  saw  the  light  until 
1862,  when  it  was  edited  in  an  abridged  form  by  Mr.  Howard. 
"  But  the  error  in  the  name  of  the  Spanish  viceroy  originated  long 
before  the  time  of  Linnaeus.  Sebastiano  Bado,  the  author  of  '  Anas- 
tasis  Corticis  Peruviae '  (Genoa,  1663),  and  one  of  the  principal  author- 
ities for  the  early  history  of  Peruvian  bark,  writes  ^C'lnchon^  for  Chin- 
chon.  Morton,  in  his  '  Pyretologia,'  1692,  mentions  the  Count's  name 
in  the  same  inaccurate  manner.  So  does  La  Condamine  in  1738,  and 
GeofFroy  in  1741.  By  some  of  these  writers  Linnaeus  was  misled,  and 
was  afterwards,  perhaps,  fortified  in  his  error  by  the  rules  he  had  laid 
down  about  the  immutability  of  generic  names. 
"  That  one  of  these  rules  was  supposed  to  apply  to  the  case  in  ques- 
tion, is  evident  from  the  remark  of  Ruiz  :  '  Linneo  parece  que  debio 
haber  expresado  el  titulo  de  los  Condes  de  Chinchon  en  su  genero,  dan- 
dole  el  nombre  de  Chinchona  y  no  el  de  Cinchona^  con  el  que  tambien  le 
