[2654] Edit. by Conrad Gesner, fol. 212 of the work [quoted in the Appendix].
[2655] ... Bericht der Natur ... der Wurtzel China, Würzburg, 1548. 4°.
[2656] The earliest of which is by Andreas Vesalius, Epistola rationem, modumque pro pinandi radicis Chymae (sic!) decocti, quo nuper invictissimus Carolus V. imperator usus est, Venet., 1546.
[2657] Returns of Trade at the Treaty Ports in China for 1872, pp. 34, 154, and the same for 1874.
[2658] See p. 324, note 2.—We quote this statement with reserve, knowing that both Chinese and Europeans sometimes confound China root with the singular fungoid production termed Pachyma Cocos. The first is called in Chinese Tu-fuh-ling,—the second Fuh-ling or Pe-fuh-ling.—See Hanbury, Pharm. Journ. iii. (1862) 421; and Science Papers, 202. 267.—F. Porter Smith, Mat. Med. and Nat. Hist. of China, 1871. 198; Dragendorff, Volksmedicin Turkestans in Buchner’s Repertorium, xxii. (1873) 135.
[2659] De Candolle’s monograph, quoted at p. 705, note 4, may be consulted on the above species.
[2660] Erdkunde von Asien, ix. West-Asien, Berlin, 1840. pp. 230-291.
[2661] The learned investigations of Heyd, Levantehandel, ii. (1879) 665-667, afford exhaustive information about the medicinal history of sugar.
[2662] The production which the English translators of the Bible have rendered Sweet Cane, and which is alluded to by the prophets Isaiah (ch. xliii. 24) and Jeremiah (ch. vi. 20) as a commodity imported from a distant country, has been the subject of much discussion. Some have supposed it to be the sugar cane; others, an aromatic grass (Andropogon). In our opinion, there is more reason to conclude that it was Cassia Bark.
[2663] Lib. ii. c. 104.