substance." He thereupon advised the importers that this lot was 

 suspiciously different from all previous /)areira hrava imports, 

 and they wrote to Para for a certificate of authenticity and 

 matching specimen, pertaining to this new shipment. Unfortu- 

 nately, the exact sample sent with the certificate from Para is not 

 known (Squibb, 1877: ''the piece tied with the green ribbon is 

 one of the three official pieces to which the certificate now app- 

 lies"), since I was unable to find any green ribbon within parcel 

 No. 1. However, Squibb stated that this certificate also per- 

 tained to "samples. . . marked No. 1 " (Plate 3). These specimens 

 have been identified as a species o{ Ahuia, rather than Cissanipe- 

 los Pareira as stated in the certificate. (Note here that the certifi- 

 cate also refers to these under the vernacular name **Ahu(ua') 

 Squibb's clarity of perception was truly amazing, especially for 

 one not trained professionally in botany or plant morphology. 

 The samples of his parcel No. 1 were indeed a different genus 

 and species altogether, from what he had previously seen and 

 had regarded ''as the true drug" — his specimen parcel No. 4 

 (below and Table 1). Hence, this large /;^/£^//y7 shipment (parcel 

 No. 1) was totally different from what both Hanbury ( 1873) and 

 Squibb considered to be the true pareira hrava — Chondoden- 

 dron lament oswu Ruiz & Pa von. 



Squibb noted that "Specimen No. 2 is from another recent 

 importation"and that "On looking at this in a large open bale a 

 more heterogeneous pile of sticks can hardly be imagined" (Plate 

 4; Table 1). He also noted that "It has not the uniformity of 

 appearance of the bales of No. 1, but looks as though all 'wild 

 vines' of whatever kind might have been collected and sent to 

 market in one lot". This parcel contains a mixture of both "stem 

 and root", as Squibb had surmised on the label and note 

 included WMthin the parcel, and also had previously commented 

 about other importations o{ pareira hrava (1872). Dr. Mennega 

 suspects that this sample No. 2 might be Cissampelos Pareira, 

 which the Brazilians appear to have regarded as the ''true pareira 

 hrava*\ and in this respect, represented the most nearly authen- 

 tic of the four specimen parcels which Squibb sent to Harvard. 

 Although Squibb was uncertain as to its authenticity, his obser- 

 vation that Sample No. I was more uniform than No. 2 was 



34 



