Rouhier in 1924 showed the plant to be an ‘‘opposite- 
leaved vine’’; and 4) both Reinberg and Rivet sent in 
material which seemed to represent the same malpighia- 
ceous plant. 
Somewhat later, Gagnepain received through Rouhier 
a specimen from the Departamento de E] Valle in Co- 
lombia, where the plant had been cultivated under the 
name of yaje. The provenience of the plant was un- 
known. The specimen had leaves and inflorescences. 
When Gagnepain discovered that it represented Banis- 
teriopsis Caapi, he arrived at a most astounding conclu- 
sion: that yaye of Colombia was the same as caapi of 
Brazil but was not the same as yaye of Ecuador. He 
asserted that Ecuadorian yaje represented a different spe- 
cies of Banisteriopsis than did Colombian yaye. Thus, he 
appeared to drop Prestonia amazonica as the source of 
any yaje. 
Most recently, Fabre (5), in reviewing the historical 
aspects of the identification of ayahuasca, caapi and yaje, 
concluded that all three are prepared basically from Ban- 
wsteriopsis, even though other plants may be used as ad- 
ditives. 
Several non-botanical workers, without the benefit of 
voucher specimens, accepted Prestonia amazonica as the 
source of the narcotic. Their ‘‘identifications’’ served to 
focus attention in the literature on the apocynaceous 
plant without really adding anything new of basic value. 
Reutter (24), for example, reported in 1927 that he had 
isolated yageine and yagenine from the vegetal parts of 
yaje or ayahuasca, which he referred to Prestonia ama- 
zonica. In a dictionary of Amazon plants, LeCointe (13) 
indicated his belief that the botanical sources of ayahuasca 
and yaje were two different plants, pointing out that 
some writers attributed yaje to Prestonia amazonica. In 
1936, Pardal (19) stated that caapi was Banisteriopsis 
[ 115 ] 
