port of their own opinions, did not endeavour to difcover
the true fource of thefe variations : it was long before the
diftindtive characters, by which the genuine was to he
diftinguifhed from the fpurious, were attended to. If a
more accurate knowledge of the trees the bark of which
thus increafed the quantity had not been wanting, or if
the tree from which the true bark was taken had been
known, we fhould have been, at leaft in part, better able to
judge in the matter. Attempts have been made, even till
the prefent time, to difcover fome other remedies which
might fupply its place, but without fuccefs : this enquiry
is fo much the more neceflary, lince, according to Monf.
Condamine’s account, publilhed more than half a century
ago in the Mem. de 1’Academie des Sciences, for the year
1738, p. 324 (edit. Amfterdam}, we may fome time or
other be neceffitated to lofe the Peruvian Bark; the trees
being at that time fo much diminifhed in Peru by frequent
decortication, that it was apprehended that in future
even a fmall quantity could fcarce be obtained from them.
Later experience has fhewn that this opinion was not entirely
void of foundation. The accounts which I have
been enabled to coiled during my reiidence in Spain, all
agree in affirming that the tree is nearly extindt in thofe
places where it was formerly found in the greateft abundance:
yet, though it has not been difcovered in any
other region, our fear is vanilhed as to our one day lofing
fo neceflary a drug. Various botanifts, who in thefe latter
times have travelled in the Weft Indies to inveftigate the
natural productions of that part of the world, have found
feveral
feveral fpecies o f this genus, which not only referable the
firft difcovered fpecies as to their qualities, but which even
feem, in fome refpedts, to furpafs it.
The Peruvian Bark was made ufe of during'a whole century,
without its being known from what tree it was
taken; and this ignorance would have frill continued,
had not fome botanifts obtained an opportunity of feeing
it in its native country. The firft whom we have to
thank for certain and authentic information concerning
the genus, is Monf. Condamine. It continued, however*
almoft inaccelfible to us after that time, its native country
not being eafily vifited by naturalifts. Few botanifts have
feen it, and all that we know of it is confined to what
Monft Condamine has related. The various figures we
are in pofleflion of are all borrowed from him, though
his reprefentation cannot be efteemed a perfect one, and
has the appearance of being in f o m e p o in t s a little artificial.
From what I fhall proceed to mention, it will be
evident that Linnaeus never faw it, but availed himfelf of
Condamine’s defcription and figure to eftablifh the characters
of the genus. From the time of Condamine to
that of Jacquin’s vifit to the Caribbee Iflands, only one
fpecies was known. Jacquin difcovered another, which
was regarded by Linnaeus as dubious, differing in fome
inconfiderable points from the Peruvian fpecies. The
fruit of the Caribbean fpecies was not at that time
known; but having fince been examined, it clearly belongs
to the fame genus. Mr. Forfter difcovered a third
B fpecies