first time, of vegetal material which seems to have been 
identified on the basis of botanical specimens. For the 
‘‘twigs, leaves and roots of caapi’’ and the ‘‘decoction 
just as used by the Indians’ which were subjected to 
chemical analysis had been collected by the botanist 
Williams near Iquitos, Peru, and were determined as 
Banisteriopsis Caapi (4,102,103). 
For the most part, recent investigators who have de- 
voted critical attention to the study of the South Amer- 
ican malpighiaceous narcotics have concurred with Ham- 
merman, Gagnepain and Klug that several species of 
Banisteriopsis, if not of other genera, may be involved 
in some regions (12). 
Nevertheless, some contemporary writers tend to sim- 
plify the problem of identification, even though their 
‘‘determinations’’ are seldom, if ever, based on speci- 
mens. While they are certainly not specialists, they are 
often quoted uncritically in technical works. Some, as 
in the case of Reko (70,71), have stated that ayahwasca, 
pinde, natema, caapi and yajé are all derived from Bani- 
steriopsis Caapit. 
In his dictionary of Amazonian plant names, Le Cointe 
(41) indicated a belief that ayahwasca and caapt were 
Banisteriopsis Caapi and that yaqjé corresponded to 
‘‘another plant that enters into the composition of the 
caapi-drink as prepared by some tribes,’’ and he pointed 
out that some writers identify yajé as Prestonia amazon- 
ica. Von Hagen (96,97) considers both natema and caapi 
to be Banisteriopsis Caapi. 
In 1936, Pardal (62) referred caapi to Banisteriopsis 
Caapi and yajé to Prestonia amazonica. The following 
year, however, he stated (68) that caapi, yqjé and aya- 
huasca are Banisteriopsis Caapt. Maxwell (52), after an 
evaluation of the literature concerning the identity of 
caapi, concluded that the narcotic was a species of Ban- 
[ 23 ] 
