[23] This is doubtless the summit described by Darwin under the name Campana de Quillota. He gives the height as 6400 feet above sea-level. The figures in the text are taken from the Chilian survey.
[24] The mapping of the Andean chain is a task of immense difficulty, and although the Chilian survey is the best that has yet been executed, it leaves much to be desired. Even in the small district which I was able to visit, I found several grave errors in Petermann’s map, reduced from the Chilian survey, which is, nevertheless, the best that has been published in Europe. One of the most serious is the omission of the Uspallata Pass, the most frequented of those leading from Central Chili to the Argentine territory, which is neither named nor correctly indicated by the tints adopted to mark the zones of elevation.
[25] “Origin of Species,” 3rd edit., p. 410.
[26] Molina, one of the most pernicious blunderers who have brought confusion into natural history, grouped together under the generic name Peumus several Chilian plants having no natural connection with each other. Misled by his erroneous description, botanists have applied the name peumus to a fragrant shrub, common about Valparaiso and elsewhere, which is known in the country by the name boldu.
[27] The Baths of Cauquenes are said to be 2523 feet above the sea; the Morro, by aneroid observation, is about 2000 feet higher.
[28] As happens with many other plants described by early botanists, there has been much confusion in regard to the species named by Linnæus Lobelia Tupa. The plant was first made known to Europeans by the excellent traveller, Father Feuillée, whose “Journal des Observations Physiques Mathématiques et Botaniques faites sur les côtes de l’Amérique meridionale, etc.,” published in 1714, is a book which may still be consulted with advantage. His descriptions of plants are usually careful and accurate, but the accompanying plates all ill-executed and often misleading. Linnæus, followed by Willdenow, refers to Feuillée’s work, but gives a very brief descriptive phrase which suits equally well Feuillée’s plant and several others subsequently discovered. Aiton, in the “Hortus Kewensis,” gives the name Lobelia Tupa to a plant which is plentiful about Valparaiso, where I found it still in flower, the seeds of which were received at Kew about a century ago from Menzies. This is now generally known by the not very appropriate name Tupa salicifolia of Don, but was first published by Sims in the Botanical Magazine, No. 1325, as Lobelia gigantea, which name it should now bear. The plant which I found near Cauquenes appears to be the Tupa Berterii of Decaudolle, a rare species, apparently not known to the authors of the “Flora Chilena.” No doubt could have arisen as to the plant intended by Linnæus as Lobelia Tupa if writers had referred to Feuillée’s full and accurate description. His account of the poisonous effects of the plant was probably derived from the Indians, and may be exaggerated. The whole plant, he says, is most poisonous, the mere smell causing vomiting, and any one touching his eyes after handling the leaves is seized with blindness. I may remark that the latter statement, which appears highly improbable, receives some confirmation from the observations of Mr. Nation, mentioned above in page 77. The plant which I saw in Peru, but failed to collect, is much smaller than most of the Chilian species, and has purple flowers, but is nearly allied in structure. It is probably the Tupa secunda of Don. I gather from a passage in one of Mr. Philippi’s writings that the word tupa in Araucanian signifies poison. We are yet, I believe, ignorant of the chemical nature of the poisonous principle contained in the plants of this group.
[29] The measurements of the height of the peak of Aconcagua vary considerably in amount, but I believe that the most reliable is that adopted by Petermann—6834 metres, or 22,422 English feet.
[30] The inconvenience of using a periphrasis for the name of so important a country may warrant my adoption of the obvious name Argentaria in place of Argentine territory, or Argentine Confederation, and I shall adhere to the shorter designation in the following pages.
[31] It is quite possible that the bird which I took for the black albatross was the giant petrel, common, according to Darwin, in these waters, and closely resembling an albatross.
[32] See an interesting paper in the Journal of Botany for July, 1884.