Flora Medica

authority and auspices of M. Zea. One of them is C. pvbescens, andis marked C. cord'ifolia Mutis, ovata Fl. Peruv., pubescent Vahl., allthree different species ; the other which is C. lucumafolia is markedC. lancifolia Mutis, to which it has no resemblance.Ruiz and Pavon, two zealous botanists employed by the SpanishGovernment in examining the Vegetation of Chili and Peru, are by farthe most extensive and original writers upon this subject who have yetpublished the result of their inquiries. They visited the fine Cinchonacountries, examined into the question personally with great care, andafter their return to Europe received a great quantity of most valuableevidence from Don Juan Tafalla who remained in Peru, and fromother persons. The result of their labours has been published in theFlora Peruviana, the Quinologia and the Supplement to that work I;have also examined a very valuable MS. left by Ruiz, and now in thepossession of Mr. Lambert. They described several new species,although by no means all that are found in Peru, many of which arestill unpublished, and determined with the most scrupulous accuracythe qualities of their barks. Their opinions are, however, rudely questioned,and their statements denied by Mutis, and especially by Zea, amost incompetent judge, and the erroneous views of the latter writershave been adopted by every Botanical author since that time, exceptMr. Poppig. Pharmacological writers have, however, not coincidedwith Messrs. Zea and Mutis ;in particular Guibourt, Pereira, Royle,and Wood and Bache, have clearly seen the impossibility of the statementsof the Santa Fe botanists being true. For my own part I have,botanically, followed Ruiz and Pavon, step by step, with their ownspecimens and many others before me, and I am bound to say that inmy opinion they are entitled to the greatest confidence for care andaccuracy. Nothing can be so absurd as to pronounce the species theyhave described as mere varieties of each other all ; they have distinguishedare most unquestionably distinct ;and the only error that Ican discover them to have committed has been that of having leftmany other stillspecies unnamed. The evidence I have examined enablesme to speak upon this point with confidence.The principal part of the observations made by Ruiz and Pavon hasbeen used by M. " Laubert, chief physician to the "Spanish army, in aMemoir upon the different species of Quinquina ; of which a translationhas been published by Mr. Lambert. That part which is borrowedfrom the published works of the Spanish Botanists deserves tobe consulted by those who have not access to the original works ;but the additional matter, derived from other sources is not to hedepended upon. For example M. Laubert professes to give a correcttabular arrangement of the vernacular names of the Quito barks,distinguishing them from each other by short botanical characters, andreferring them to their species. His first species is C. microphylla aname unknown to Botanists, but which Mr. Lambert says, upon theauthority of Zea, was given by Mutts to the small-leaved variety ofC. glandulosa Fl. Peruv. Under this M. Laubert collects the Case.Chanharguera which belongs to C. Condaminea, Case. Pata de Gallaretathe produce of C. ovata, and the C. lucumafolia. For these reasons M.Laubert's Memoir does not appear to me deserving of further notice.Messrs. Humboldt and Bonpland have given some valuable andgenerally very correct information concerning certain species, in theirsplendid Plantas aequinoctiales. But I must confess that the synonymy409