Apparently, this aroused suspicion in Squibb's mind as to the 

 authenticitx' and qualit\ oi' botanical importations under the 

 name parcira hravch and he began to scrutinize commercial 

 samples more carefully. Subsequently, he noticed a very hetero- 

 geneous parcel o{ Brazilian parcira hrava, recently imported 

 from Europe, and was ''surprised to find nearly one-half of it so 

 entirely different from any hitherto seen'\ initially declaring it a 

 ''fraudulent adulteration or substitution''. Squibb soon dis- 

 coNcred that this new importation was actually "a mixture of 

 stem and root", and that the "taste o( the root is very much 

 stronger, and \ ields at least twice as much extracti\e material to 

 the menstrua." Upon closer examination, he also found that this 

 shipment agreed quite well with many of the older published 

 accounts o( parcira, especially w^ith the illustration oi Pomct 

 (loc. cit.) and conceded that "this was the \vuq parcira root", and 

 what he "had heretofore seen was the stem." Squibb thereupon 

 concluded that "for some twelve or fifteen years past, this 

 market has been supplied with the comparatively inert stem, 

 instead of the root of parcira,^' 



In 1873, Daniel Hanbury commented on the "extremely ob- 

 scure" botanical origin of the "\arious stems and roots known as 

 Parcira Brava'\ noting that most v\riters haxe referred to the 

 drug, without question, as Cissafupclos Parcira L., of the family 

 Menispermaceae. Hanbury was the first to obtain and study 

 comparali\ely both stems, roots and herbarium specimens from 

 the same plant of Cissanipclos Parcira. from several sources 

 throughout the species' pantropic range: Brazil, Ceylon, Jam- 

 aica and Trinidad. Hanbury compared these authenticated spec- 

 imens with the published accounts and illustration of parcira 

 hrava, and declared that this drug was no! derived from Cissani- 

 pclos Parcira: "neither the stem nor the root of the plant resem- 

 bles any of the forms of that drug I had ever met with in 

 commerce". Hanbury also gave a short history of parcira hrava, 

 emphasizing that Cissanipclos Parcira in no way resembles a 

 "wild \ ine" reminiscent of the grape vine, for which the Portu- 

 guese colonists in Brazil had named it ^'parcira hrava". Hanbury 

 noted further that specimens of ChonJoJcnJron tomcniosuni 

 Ruiz & Pavon, sent to him from Brazil bv Mr. Theodore Peck- 



28 



