not always attributable to ignorance or uncertainty. It 
is frequently the result of a deliberate flouting of the 
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. Its 
continuation will not lead to standardization or to clarity 
but to the further beclouding of the exact identity of the 
malpighiaceous narcotics as well as to confusion in tax- 
onomic and floristic works. 
Ducke (19,20), in refusing to use the generic epithet 
Banisteriopsis, stated that his reason was an objection to 
the multiplication of names in botany. Macbride (48) not 
only chose to use Banisteria; he made the new combina- 
tion Banisteria inebrians, attributing it erroneously*® to 
Morton who has been most outspoken against this use of 
the name Banisteria. And recently Baldwin, in an article 
on the chromosomes of Banisteriopsis Caapi (5) chose to 
use the epithet Banisteria. 
Non-botanical writers, faced with this lack of standard- 
ization in technical papers, often continue to use Bani- 
steria instead of Banisteriopsis in connection with the 
narcotic species under discussion (21,380,382, 46,51,62,68, 
64,91). 
An increasing number of technical writers, neverthe- 
less, are employing the correct generic epithet (12,28, 
33, 34,65,85,93). 
V 
Although little new information has been published 
since 1981, a study of material preserved in our herbaria 
and museums, and recent field observations and collec- 
tions by several plant explorers have contributed other 
data which should be made available. It would seem to 
be especially necessary to do this, since, as the foregoing 
literature review has shown, little if anything of an ac- 
3 ** Ranisteria inebrians Morton, Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 21: 485 
(1931).”” 
