Flora Medica

CINCHONACE^E.Bogota, having discovered forests of Cinchona about that cityin theyear 1772, called the attention of his government to that importantfact, sent specimens to Linnaeus, subsequently received official chargeof the Cinchona woods from the Viceroy of Santa Fe, and thusbecame of great authority in the eyes of European Botanists in all thatrelates to the species producing the barks of commerce. Baron Humboldt,who knew him personally, speaks of him in terms of greatcommendation for his zeal, knowledge, and disinterestedness. Neverthelessit appears to me, as it also has to M. Guibourt (Hist, desdrogues, ed. 3. ii. 46.), that Mutis has more embroiled the history ofthis valuable drug, and introduced a greater number of false ideasconcerning the quality and origin of its various samples, than all thewriters upon the subject since its first discovery. He asserted that thebarks of Santa Fe" were the same as those of Peru, and thus led themerchants of Europe to purchase at Carthagena, the sea-port for theKingdom of Santa Fe, barks similar indeed in name to those of Loxa,Lima and La Paz, but resembling them in nothing else. The red barkof Mutis is nothing more than the bad sort now called Quina nova, hisyellow bark has nothing to do either in quality or origin with C. Condaminea,nitida and others which are really possessed of valuable properties,but is in all probability yielded by C. cordifolia, and is what isnow named Carthagena bark; while his Quina blanca produced byC. macrocarpa, and which is quite inert, has no Botanical connectionwith the bark of that name from Loxa (See Guibourt ii. 47.). Finallyhis orange bark, or Quina naranjada, so far from equalling the valuableCalisaya of La Paz is according to Ruiz of second quality only, andaccording to Guibourt extremely fibrous and of the worst description.Humboldt speaks with indignation, of a large quantity of the Quinanaranjada which had been collected by Mutis at a great expense,having been burnt as worthless, and ascribes the act to mercantilecunning, but I am disposed with M. Guibourt rather to regard theoccurrence as a proof of the good sense, and knowledge of the King ofSpain's advisers. It appears that this Quina is naranjada of no valuewhatever, being what Mr. Pereira calls New Spurious Yellow Bark. Itis however in the highest degree uncharitable to impute to Mutisany thing more than excessive zeal for the prosperity of his province;and in fact it isa pparent from the following circumstance that hiswant of correct Botanical discrimination was sufficient to lead himunintentionally into the errors he committed. A great deal has beensaid about specimens of Cinchonas sent by Mutis to Linnaeus. Ihave examined those specimens. Those in the herbarium of Linnaeushimself consist of loose dried flowers of two different species, one ofwhich is C. pubescens, the other I did not recognise ; along with themare loose fruits of some species resembling C. stenocarpa, and a leafwhich is not that of a Cinchona at all.They are accompanied by abarbarous drawing of what was probably intended for C. pubescens;the whole are called C. pcruviana. Yet although the principal part ofthese documents belongs to C. pubescens, I do not find that specieseven mentioned by Mutis as belonging to the Flora of Santa Fe. Itis not perhaps fair to carry this criticism further, and to blame M. Mutisfor the inaccuracy of his friend Zea and his disciples. It is howevernot unimportant to show what dependence can be placed upon theinformation hitherto obtained from that source. I happen to possesstwo dried specimens of Cinchonas from Santa Fe", named under the408