Talk:Cinchona

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: 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)--99.231.66.125 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So? — LlywelynII 01:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Uses - Current

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixt. — LlywelynII 01:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect link to Countess 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of POV tag 2010-03-29 

message: 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 76.119.125.104 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Neoclassical Art and Architecture. — LlywelynII 00:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  False description under figure 

message: 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 Professor E Behring "On therapuetic principles, especially on the aetiological and the isopathical curative principle" Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift, No 5, 3rd Feb 1998 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" Professor L Lewin, "The secondary effects of remedies" 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)
thread_title:  Cullen, Hahnemann and Peruvian Bark 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Medicinal uses and Cite notes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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? 194.174.73.33 (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia do not name the tree Cinchona, Wikipedia use  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)
thread_title:  opening sentence 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Countess anecdote 

message: For historical practices, understandings, and sourcing of anecdotes:
* .
* .
* .
* , esp. its conclusion.
* .
* .
* , reprinted by the Cambridge University Press.
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)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion

message: “/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)
replies: text: presumably the difference is in the stress or lack of it. Shyamal (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation oddity 

message: I cannot find an explanation why certain plants deposit quinine in their bark. The article concentrates on the medicinal benefit to humans.  Does quinine protect the trees from certain pests/fungi/bacteria/virus etc, come as a waste by-product of some cellular process or what other function does it serve the plants themselves? Presumably, the plants do not do this as a favor to humans and are not themselves affected by maleria?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:B817:8300:480A:F4F0:F44A:D15C (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely one of millions of plant secondary metabolite which are thought to have evolved for defence but it is rarely easy to identify specific targets due to the complexity and the long-history of ecological interactions that have led to its evolution. The agents involved could even be extinct now. Shyamal (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Botanical reason for production of quinine