From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternate (common) name[edit]

I believe it's also called "China" bark. This should be added to the article. Badagnani 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


The proper pronunciation would be a nice addition to the article. Chillum 00:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The pronunciation is straightforward and belongs at the Wiktionary entry, not needlessly cluttering up the lead here. — LlywelynII 00:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I think I would agree that it should be covered since the spelling and pronunciation vary with whether it is the Latin name or the vernacular version and also it would appear, with epoch. The old spelling of Chinchona reflecting the etymology is indeed pronounced quite differently and deserves coverage. Shyamal (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the Classical Latin pronunciation is irrelevant to an English article about a New Latin term but, having checked out the OED, yeah, the /ng/ in the first syllable and hard /k/ in the second are unexpected enough that we should go ahead and include a sourced pronunciation.
 Done — LlywelynII 01:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what benefit there is to mentioning "chinchona" outside noting Markham's failed attempt to correct Linnaeus's misspelling. In any case, it was a failed attempt. It belongs in the #History section or in a separate #Name section, not in the lead. — LlywelynII 01:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In Popular Culture[edit]

Wasn't Cinchona the objective of an old computer game called The Amazon Trail? I think that this might be relevant information, but I'm not sure. I thought I should check before adding that information. Bennoman (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Other Uses - Current[edit]

On the packaging of Herbatint Hair dye, under 'Ingredients', Cinchona is listed thus; Cinchona Extract - Natural extract from Chinchona - Tonic, Astringent / Antiseptic for the scalp. The ingredients are also listed at the following link: Herbatint Ingredients. I verified this ingredient by reading the ingredients on a package I puchased M. Waithe (talk)-- (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So? — LlywelynII 01:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect link to Countess[edit]

The wikilink to the Countess points to a painting of María Teresa de Borbón, 15th Countess of Chinchón. However, she lived after the 1638 date listed and never married out of Spanish royalty. The wikilink should be removed as it is incorrect. Morenooso (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixt. — LlywelynII 01:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag 2010-03-29[edit]

Since as per the tag, Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (August 2009), and no discussion ever took place as to what was POV, I assume this issue is dead. Should the POV tag be replaced, it will be removed summarily if not discussed. --Morenooso (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I am working on copyedit and referencing the article. Am also rm neutrality tag per no response to your post for 3 months. prashanthns (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I must have missed removing the tag. Glad you followed up. I agree with your removal and assessment. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

False description under figure[edit]

The picture of what looks like ancient Greeks or something says that "Peru offers a piece of Cinchona to Science" which is obviously false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Neoclassical Art and Architecture. — LlywelynII 00:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Cullen, Hahnemann and Peruvian Bark[edit]

I've made some changes in the text as it doesn't concur with what has been written by Cullen nor Hahnemann.
Cullen referred to it as "Peruvian bark", not quinine. He also referred to "intermittent fevers" not malaria - see ref in article.
Nowhere I'm aware of did Cullen write that it caused malaria nor intermittent fever - I have read the book in the ref.
Hahnemenn actually referred to it as China, Cinchona or Peruvian bark, Quinine bark is not a well used term, certainly not in this context of homeopathy. Further it is not described as such elswhere in the article.
The concept of "rare" in describing Hahnemanns reaction to the Peruvian bark is possibly exaggerating, though to say his specific individual sensitivity to it is accurate. There is no data I know of to describe acurately how rare it is. It does appear from literature of the time [1] that there was a doubt over whether it was possible for a fever to occur with the administration of cinchona. However, Hahnemann didn't claim an actual fever, he merely described the symptoms as being similar to the fever symptoms and list many but says nothing of an actual fever. Therefore the claims it was wrong or unusual are suspect. That it is his individual sensitivity is logical and infers some degree of it not being common or universal, his "special individual susceptability" [2] is possibly better in the lack of other evidence. However not having access to the reference currently in the article I will leave this until someone can say where that author got his information from. Though the "are now believed" is clearly inaccurate as it was doubted at the time and worded as I said just above. Therefore I have removed the now. Cjwilky (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Medicinal uses and Cite notes[edit]

In the first paragraph of Cinchona#Medicinal_uses, shouldn't there be a source?

Also, in Cinchona#cite_note-mysore-6, the note redirects to the correct page in the book, but it isn't p. 892. It's p. 169. JMtB03 (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

opening sentence[edit]

The opening sentence: "Cinchona or Quina is a genus of about 38 species in the family Rubiaceae, native to the tropical Andes forests of western South America." What is the thing? Is it flowers, insects, worms... how about birds? It doesn't matter how many species or in what family, if we don't know what it is. Even after reading the second sentence, and seeing the picture of the flower, we might assume it's a wild flower (we'd be wrong). Other sources say 40 species; I suppose that's 'about' 38, but why not use a nice round number? Stating '38' sounds like we know exactly how many there are. Some sources say 67 species. In the Species section, we list only 28; where's the other ten? Maybe the section title should be Selected species, or there needs to be some kind of footnote (at least) to the effect that there are others not enumerated. I've already changed the intro sentence about medicinal species (there are only 4 that are efficacious for that purpose, and two of those only marginally). And it isn't the plant (i.e. dig it up, cut it down, whatever) that is used medicinally - it's only the bark of the tree, and it is harvested from the tree carefully, so the tree remains alive.

Cinchona is a botanical genus name; but foremost, it is the vernacular name of a type of tree, lke Elm, Oak, etc. It may also refer to the bark of the tree, or loosely to a medicinal preparation of the powdered bark dissolved in wine. We might also want to place a [distinguish|Chinchon] hatnote, in case the reader was looking for the municipality of Chinchon, Spain from which the name of the tree is derived. Early texts also spelled the name Cinchonum.

The intro needs to be re-drafted, first things first, and with a bit more attention to accurate detail.Sbalfour (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please, why do Wikipedia name the tree Cinchona, when it is named after Chincon, many dictionaries have Chinchona and some years ago I met exclusively the name Chinchona? Und how would you pronounce it? Like China, Sin, Queen or Kin? (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
Wikipedia do not name the tree Cinchona, Wikipedia use WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH name, which come from Linnaeus and is attested by many dictionaries and sources. You didn't exclusively meet with the name Chinchona in English-language dictionaries or texts. C-I is almost always a soft /s/ sound in English. The unexpected part is the /ŋ/ and the Grecian /k/ for a word that ostensibly came from Spanish. — LlywelynII 01:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


As a reminder, don't use these on talk pages. — LlywelynII 00:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Professor E Behring "On therapuetic principles, especially on the aetiological and the isopathical curative principle" Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift, No 5, 3rd Feb 1998
  2. ^ Professor L Lewin, "The secondary effects of remedies"

Countess anecdote[edit]

The brief story about the Countess bathing in quinine-infused water to cure malaria is apocryphal and needs to be sourced. It doesn't even include a date when this happened--1987? 1523? It is completely unclear whether bathing in quinine even has any therapeutic value, much less being able to cure malaria. I'm not even sure if drinking it will cure malaria. 6StringJazzer (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not wrong to ask for sources and to be wary of giving people misleading information about medical treatments, but the countess herself is well attested even if there seems to be a lot of confusion about the details. (Better sources don't have the wife of the viceroy slumming with the natives herself, which is much more unbelievable than the idea she would have administered it in some odd way. The family picked it up from one of the local lords, who had picked it up from the Indians eight years earlier. A separate account is that one of the Jesuits working directly with the Indians was the first case, and the richer Spaniards learned it from them.) — LlywelynII 00:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Even accepting the dubious story, note that Clements R. Markham was the first to claim that the Countess involved was Ana De Osorio, the Count's first wife, in his 'a Memoir of the Lady Ana de Osorio, Countess of Chinchon' (1874). He corrected this in his 'a History of Peru' (1892), noting that Ana de Osorio died before the Count was appointed Viceroy, and that the Countess during his tenure in Peru was his second wife, Francisca Henriquez de Ribera. Nomen ambiguum (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion[edit]

For historical practices, understandings, and sourcing of anecdotes:

Particularly noteworthy is the fear of peak cinchona (although possibly at the insistence of self-interested English botanists) and the efforts to preserve the trees through moratoria on its harvesting in Upper Peru and the efforts to establish plantations in Algeria and on Java. Note also Royle's repetition of the claim that the indians had not known the use of the quinquino and that the Jesuits claimed to have discovered its uses. — LlywelynII 00:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Jesuit's bark[edit]

Result was no consensus. There is a clear consensus that Jesuit's bark should be merged somewhere, with only one editor opposed. However by my count four editors support cinchona as the target and three support quinine as the target, which is not enough of a margin for a consensus. As a way ahead, instead of starting a second RfC, perhaps an interested party could approach editors who supported a merge to cinchona and ask them if they would be okay with quinine as the merge target. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The COMMON NAME of the medicinal bark is cinchona. ("Jesuit's bark" is archaic and was always less common: see the linked Britannica article above from 150 years ago.) The medicinal bark can be and is extracted from more than one species of this genus (ditto Britannica) but is distinct from factory-produced modern pharmaceuticals. This article is the best namespace and the proper scope to address the traditional medicine and there's no need to treat the history of the plants' cultivation in two places. — LlywelynII 01:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely merge worthy. Shyamal (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have read both articles and the article on Jesuit's Bark is a primarily history based article documenting the history of the use of "Jesuit's Bark" and I believe it can stand on it's own. However, the article on Jesuit's Bark needs serious reworking, as it contains multiple major problems within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyman99 (talkcontribs) 03:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I hope you have seen the relevant policies on common name usage (if not do check Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants#Plant_article_naming_conventions) - this is a very frequent occurrence where botanical entities have significant historic names or names used in culinary or medicinal use but it is extremely rare that they are maintained as anything but redirects and as alternate names in the lead. The main content is essentially similar - unless Peruvian bark and Jesuit bark refer to specific species (which they most certainly are not in this case - there were multiple species involved with vague common names ascribed to them). Shyamal (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I have checked them and I still stand by my decision in believing that Jesuit's bark is a primarily historical article rather than a scientific article, and thus should not be judged under standard flora naming conventions. Also as a note, just because an article is not mentioned very often does not mean it should be ignored, although I will say the substance in that article (Jesuit's bark) is very unreliable.Funkyman99 (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and opinion but "flora naming conventions" doesn't enter into it. "Jesuit's bark" is not the COMMON ENGLISH name and therefore definitely is not going to stay where it is. The only question is whether it merges directly to this article or goes somewhere like cinchona (bark) or cinchona bark. — LlywelynII 07:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Then I would definitely support a renaming of Jesuit's bark to Cinchona bark as I still believe that the historical significance of the bark deserves it's own article Funkyman99 (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Note Ngram link if it wasn't clear that "Jesuit's bark" was a mistitled article and is a done thing. — LlywelynII 07:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge. The 2 articles are about the same plant. Suggestion, in the RFC add a specific question at the top like: "Should the 2 articles abc,xyz be merged into 1 article?" to make clear the point of the rfc.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are three related article: Cinchona, about a genus of plants; Quinine, about a chemical with medicinal properties; and Jesuit's bark, about a product of the plant containing the chemical as its active ingredient. If the last of these is to be merged, it should be with Quinine. Compare oil of wintergreen, which is a redirect to methyl salicylate, not to Gaultheria. Maproom (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For the same or similar reasons as User:Maproom. There are three distinct (although related) topics. (1) The plant genus Cinchona. (2) The chemical compound quinine. (3) Jesuit's bark (AKA Peruvian bark, a name I know better), a medicinal substance known and used long before either the genus had been described or the compound identified, in days when no-one knew why or how it was effective. Narky Blert (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge (but leaning towards Quinine as target article). Maproom's proposal might be a viable alternative option, but having looked at the Jesuit's bark article, the issues seem to me to be pretty readily apparent and I think a merge to one of the two proposed namespaces is the simplest solution for addressing the numerous issues with tone and verifiability that the content of the Jesuit's bark article, which has a definite WP:POVFORK quality to it.
Most of the four sources for the Jesuit bark article are centrally concerned with the discovery and nature of the Cinchona genus specifically, but these are referenced only incidentally in the lead and in one parenthetical. Instead, the vast majority of the article seems to be a copy and paste of content from a dated version of the Catholic Encyclopedia. The content copied into the article is now in the public domain, which might explain why an inexperienced Wikipedia editor might have thought it was alright to transcribe it more or less wholesale into a Wikipedia article, but doing so has (predictably) caused a great number of conflicts with our own policies on neutrality, verifiability, and general encyclopedic tone, especially with regard to the scope and focus of the article. The imported text is less concerned with the medicinal properties of Jesuit's/Peruvian bark or its history as a general historical topic and is instead concerned with minutia about the Catholic church, losing all sense of encyclopedic summary in order to extoll the role of the church and various Catholics--and to attack non-Catholics who, (supposedly) stood in the way of the cure. It's not at all meeting our standards for encyclopedic content on this project. But then, why would it?; it's content from a 1907 publication that was meant to focus upon (and, to a large extent, to venerate) specific individuals and institutions.
So I'm a little torn on which way the merge should proceed, but I think a merger probably is the simplest way to deal with this mess, moving some of the historical information contained in Jesuit's bark into either Quinine, this article, or both, with a redirect from the deleted article namespace pointing to either of the other two articles. Looking at the Quinine article, it already has a decent history section in it, providing support for Maproom's suggestion for that as the target of the merge. I would note though, that the section covers the same details in a more encyclopedic and neutral fashion, so I wouldn't go overboard on the merged material, but there might be a handful of details worth adding, though ideally we'd first have some additional sourcing. As a purely procedural matter, I note that Maproom and Narky Blert have !voted "Oppose" to the specific proposition of the RfC, but seem to me to be more well-disposed to the idea of a merge to Quinine. I wonder if I might impose upon them to clarify to what degree they endorse that option; it might help us to avoid someone having to start a second RfC on one of the talk pages for those articles. However, if we do try to reformulate this RfC towards that proposal, we should probably post a notice about this discussion on Talk:Quinine, so as to be pro forma about this and not step on the toes of any editors working on that article (though it looks quiet there right now). Snow let's rap 23:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I still favor a merge with quinine, following the comparable· oil of wintergreen. Maproom (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge: The two subjects are the same. Otr500 (talk)
Comments: Check out: Cinchona (disambiguation); Cinchona, a genus in the Rubiaceae plant family.". "Jesuit's bark, also called cinchona: bark from any of several Cinchona species used to extract quinine used in medicine". This would be from the same genus in the Rubiaceae plant family.
The etymology of Cinchona would include the more historical Jesuit's bark. The Quechua Indians likely used another name for the tree, that would likely be interpreted into Spanish. The point is that the etymology of the tree has the same origin, the trees (or plants), and the bark, are the same.
The "Cinchona bark" when removed does not become "Jesuit's bark". There is also the name "quinaquina tree". The historical names belong in the same article. A problem is that most of these articles are poorly referenced at best. Otr500 (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation oddity[edit]

“/sɪŋˈkoʊnə/ or /-koʊnə/”

The ending with the hyphen is the same as the ending found in the first transcription. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)