on these Indians by von Hagen (96) likewise refers the 
cultivated nepe to Banisteriopsis Caapi. It is again doubt- 
ful that any of these determinations were made on the 
basis of botanical specimens. 
In 1905, Rocha (77) published an account of his trip 
to the headwaters of the Rios Caquetaé and Putumayo 
in Colombia and reported that the Inga and Siona In- 
dians of the region, which to-day is included in the 
Comisaria del Putumayo, employed as a narcotic a “‘little 
bush” or ‘‘liana’’ called yajé. He stated that the natives 
would not allow white men to see the plant and that, for 
this reason, he did not know it from personal observa- 
tion. His account of its properties, however, coincided 
very closely with those described for ayahuasca, and it 
was widely assumed that the two were identical. 
In 1907, Rivet (75) wrote on the Jivaros of the Rios 
Pastaza and Bobonaza in eastern Ecuador. He indicated 
that they had a narcotic liana which they called natema 
and which he referred to Banisteriopsis Caapi. He clearly 
distinguished between the narcotics natema or yajé on the 
one hand and maicoma or maikoa (Datura sp.) on the 
other. Rivet’s identifications were apparently not based 
on botanical specimens. 
Later, Karsten (35) stated his belief that the ayahuasca 
of the Indians of the Rios Napo, Curaray, Bobonaza and 
Pastaza; the natema of the Jivaros; the pinde of the 
Cayapas; the nepe of the Colorados; and the caapi of the 
Rio Negro are all referable to one species: Banisteriop- 
sis Caapi. Ina letter to Reinburg (69), Karsten reiterated 
that he had no doubt that natema, ayahuasea, nepe and 
pinde are identical and may be referred to Banisteriopsis 
Caapi, even though he had available no identifications 
made on the basis of specimens, and that he could not 
offer a botanical determination of the ‘‘idhi’ (yajé?), an 
intoxicating liana which the Jivaros never used alone but 
[ 10 ] 
