‘‘named as the source of yaje and caapi.... there is 
little or no reliable evidence that this vine is ever em- 
ployed, at least as the prime ingredient, in preparing the 
narcotic drink. ’”’ 
A chemical study, published shortly thereafter by 
Hochstein and Paradies (11), seemed, however, to end 
all uncertainty. Entitled ‘‘Alkaloids of Banisteria Caapi 
and Prestonia amazonicum”’ [sic], it reported that “‘the 
hallucinogenic plant Banisteria Caapi contains in addi- 
tion to harmine, the alkaloids harmaline and d-tetrahy- 
droharmine’’ and that ‘‘ Prestonia amazonicum leaves have 
yielded another psychotomimetic amine, N, N-dimethy]- 
tryptamine.’’? The plant materials studied by the two 
chemists were collected by Mr. D. H. Allen who was 
engaged in commercial activity in the vicinity of Iquitos, 
Peru. Both the ayahuasca (which is identified as Banis- 
teriopsis Caapi) and the yaje (for which the determination 
Prestonia amazonica was offered) ‘‘were collected on the 
Napo River near Iquitos, Peru.’’ Hochstein and Para- 
dies state in a footnote that ‘‘the botanical identification 
was made by Dr. R. Ferreyra of the University of San 
Marcos, Lima.’’ They do note parenthetically that 
these two vernacular names have, in the past, been cited 
as representing the same species, Banisteriopsis Caapi. 
Nowhere in the paper, however, did the chemists state 
that voucher herbarium specimens, upon which a defini- 
tive identification could be based, had been sent in by the 
collector. Ferreyra (in /itt.) informed us that he was not 
aware of the existence of any herbarium material in con- 
nection with these identifications. Faced with the lack of 
voucher specimens, the botanist often, in an attempt to 
be as helpful as possible in guiding the chemist, suggests 
a tentative identification based on a vernacular name, and 
the botanist’s words of qualification are sometimes disre- 
garded. This is precisely what has transpired in the pres- 
[ 110 | 
