from the stems, an intoxicating brew was prepared. 
Niedenzu stated that the characters of Mggers 15485 
did not seem to correspond very closely with Banisteri- 
opsis quitensis as it was described. Tessmann 4974 and 
5525, from the Rios Pastaza and Itaya, respectively, were 
referred without question to Banisteriopsis quitensis. 
Both were called ayawasca and were reported to be the 
source of a narcotic drink employed by witch-doctors. 
Tessmann identified Tessmann 5325 as Banisteriopsis 
Caapi, but Niedenzu pointed out that the collection was 
distinct from this species. In summary, Niedenzu stated 
that these wild and cultivated plants of Banisteriopsis 
from eastern Ecuador and Peru and the uses reported for 
them would seem to indicate that yageine, the alkaloid 
whose source was still in doubt, might well have come 
from similar species and that, on the basis of his studies, 
it would seem that three sources of the narcotic ‘‘aya- 
wasca’’ ought to be considered: Mascagnia psilophylla 
var. antifebrilis, Banisteriopsis quitensis and B. Caapi. 
Another attempt to put some order into the confusion 
resulting from field observations and fragmentary speci- 
mens occasionally gathered by ethnologists was made by 
Gagnepain, who, in 1930, published his botanical opin- 
ions relative to these narcotics (24). He pointed out (a) 
that, according to Reinburg, ayahuasca was ‘‘probably”’ 
Banisteriopsis Caapi, but that yayé could not be referable 
to this species; (b) that yayé seemed to approach Pres- 
tonia amazonica; (c) that fragments received as yajé by 
the chemist Rouhier in 1924 showed the plant to be an 
‘““opposite-leaved vine’’; (d) that both Rivet and Rein- 
burg sent in material which seemed to represent the 
same malpighiaceous plant. Later, Gagnepain received, 
through Rouhier, a specimen from the Departamento 
de KI Valle in Colombia, where the plant was cultivated 
under the name of yajé.. The specimen, with leaves and 
[ 20 ] 
