Fischer admitted that botanical determination of yajé 
had not been made, but he stated that, to judge from 
anatomic and histologic details, it seemed to bea species 
of Aristolochia. In 1924, shortly after Fischer’s work was 
done, Rouhier (78) accepted this ‘‘identification,’’ stat- 
ing that his specimens ‘‘reminded one of a liana, proba- 
bly a species of the Aristolochiaceae.’’ In a subsequent 
work, however, Rouhier (79) attributed ayahuasca to 
Banisteriopsis Caapi but yajé to a ‘‘liana,’’ the identifica- 
tion of which was still under discussion. He pointed out 
that in its physiological action and its geographical range, 
yajyé was comparable to ayahuasca, and he dismissed its 
reference to Prestonia amazonica as ‘‘doubtful.’’ At about 
the same time, Barriga-Villalba (6), a Colombian chem- 
ist, and Albarracin (1), a Colombian pharmacologist, 
actively investigated yaqjé, but neither shed any further 
light whatsoever on the botanical identity of the drug. 
Albarracin described the source of his material as a 
‘‘climbing shrub’’ and asserted that the natives did not 
cultivate yajé because it abounded in the forests. 
Reporting in 1926 on the caapi ceremony of the Tu- 
kano Indians of the Rio Tikié, a Brazilian affluent of the 
Uaupés, MacCreagh (49) described the intoxicant as ‘‘a 
thin, almost colorless liquid ... concocted from the 
leaves of a vine.’ He, apparently, failed to collect her- 
barium material of the vine. It is worthy of note that 
the Rio Tikié is the same area where Koch-Griinberg 
had made his observation on caapi. It is very near the 
locality where Spruce first met with the drug (90). Com- 
menting on ‘‘haapi,’’ which he had encountered in his 
travels in the same general region, the English explorer 
McGovern (53) failed to venture a botanical determina- 
tion, merely mentioning that the drug was made from 
**a root.” 
A rather inclusive survey of what had been accom- 
[ 18 | 
