The botanical work of the Mulford Biological Exploration of 1921-22 was directecl especially toward the investigation of medicinal plants, the results of which will be published from time to time, as the studies are completed. Although most of our information regarding the native uses of these plants will prove of historical interest only, a number of the subjects possess practical importance. Among these are the botanical and geographical sources of the Cot0 and Coccillana barks and their commercial substitutes, which form the subject of the present contribution.
My acquaintance with coto bark began in the early eighties, when my employers, Messrs. Parke, Davis & Company, listed fluidextracts of both cot0 and paracoto. Mr. 11. A. Wetzel, our supcrintendent, one day brought me samples of each oi these barks with instructions to investigate carefully and decide to which the respective names properly belonged. He informed me a t the time that the name "paracoto" had been coined arbitrarily, for the sole purpose of distinguishing a hark that had been found in commerce under the name coto, but which was obviously distinct from, though closely similar to the real article. This statement I verified in the course of my investigations, and it is noted here in criticism of the statement that has found its way into print to the effect that the name "paracoto" was assigned because its bark is produced in the region of Para, in northeastern Brazil, an assumption that is wholly erroneous.
At the time referred to, both cot0 and paracoto barks were readily obtainable in our market, being imported, always, so far as I know, from Germany. All that was known of their geographical origin was comprised in the general statement that they were collected in Bolivia. On my first journey to South America, in ISS3, one of my objects was to determine the exact place of production of these barks.
Kothing whatever was known as to the botanical origin of either, except that their structure, composition and properties rendered it practically certain that they belonged to the family Lauraceae. I was, of course, interested in solving this problem, also.
I t so chanced that the nearest that I came to the cot0 region on that expedition was distant a good hard four or five days' journey, and I did not know this until after I had passed by, so I lost even this slim opportunity.
While in La Paz, and before starting overland, I had been presented by a Jesuit priest with a leaf and a fruit which he claimed belonged to the coto tree. This specimen I mailed to Detroit, without, as I now recall, any information concerning it. iMr. Wetzel sent it to a German university for botanical determination. They replied that the species was unknown in Germany, and could not be determined without flowers, but they suspected that it was the source of cot0 bark. Kow that I have specimens of the cot0 tree, I know this supposition to be incorrect, for the leaf in question was nearly a foot long, lanceolate, and of very thick heavy texture. The fruit was like a very large, elongated acorn, much larger and more slender than those shown here as belonging to the cot0 tree. I have no doubt that it was a species of h'ectandra, and I think very likely it came from the para-cot0 tree.