While Mutis, and his disciples Caldas and Zea, were prosecuting their researches in New Granada, an expedition under the botanists Ruiz and Pavon was sent to Peru; and an acrimonious paper war sprang up between the rivals, as to the respective merits of the barks of New Granada and Peru. Ruiz declared the New Granada kinds to be inferior to those of Peru, while Mutis contradicted him, and Zea[56] went so far as to maintain that the species found by Ruiz and Pavon in Peru were mere varieties of the four chinchonas of Mutis, growing near Bogota.[57] The _C. lancifolia_ of Mutis is dispersed in wild inaccessible forests, while the other three kinds grow in partly cultivated and inhabited regions, and their barks are therefore much more easy to collect. These worthless barks were, therefore, largely exported from Carthagena and Santa Martha, while the valuable _C. lancifolia_ was neglected; and the consequence was that the barks of New Granada fell entirely into discredit for many years. In about 1849, however, Dr. Santa Maria of Bogota discovered the _C. lancifolia_ afresh, producing the _quina anaranjada_, and it has recently been found in the whole cordillera from Bogota to Popayan, and largely exported between 1849 and 1855, when the supplies began to fail. Dr. Karsten, a distinguished German botanist, has lately returned from a residence of some years in New Granada, where he thoroughly examined the region of _C. lancifolia_. His remarks on the production of alkaloids in chinchona barks are very important. He came to the conclusion that the content of alkaloids was not always the same in the same species of chinchona, and that the soil and relations of climate, on which the nourishment of the plant depends, exercise considerable influence. He also assumes, what is undoubtedly true, that the chinchonæ with the capsule opening from the base and crowned by the calyx, with a corolla of delicate texture and bearded edges, and generally unindented seed-lobes, give febrifugal barks; but his further position that the short oval or elliptic capsules are a sign of a regularly larger content of alkaloids, while long capsules show a small quantity or total absence of quinine and chinchonine, though doubtless correct so far as Dr. Karsten's personal observation extended, will not bear general application. The _C. succirubra_, the richest of all the barks in alkaloids, would certainly come under the latter head. Dr. Karsten's observations on the differences in the structure of the false and true barks are also exceedingly valuable.