The Kew Museums contain a fine series of specimens illustrating 

 the practice, collected by Spruce. There was some uncertainty as 

 to the precise species employed in their case, and an enquiry 

 received the following interesting reply : — 



Dear Sir, 



The piece of pottery about which you ask, from its size and 

 colours, was probably made on the River Naupes, where I saw 

 Caraipe ware in the greatest abundance and perfection. I have 

 somewhere a list of all the articles I sent to Kew, but it is many 

 years since I saw it last, and it has been so carefully stowed away 

 that now when I want it to refer to it I cannot find it. 



If the vessel be really from the Naupes, there is little doubt 

 that the flinty bark mixed with the clay to render it fireproof was 

 not derived from what you call " Moquilea iitiiis" but from one 

 or more of at least half-a-dozen different Chrysobalans, all of which 

 I have seen used for that purpose on the Naupes. Even at Para, I 

 should much doubt that Caraipe (as it is called) was the product of 

 only a single species ; but my stay there was too short to ascertain 

 the fact. Since the days when I was a botanist the species of 

 Ghrijsohalanem have been banded about among sundry genera, 

 but all the trees of which I gathered specimens, and whose bark 

 I saw used in making pottery, were referred by Mr. Bentham to 

 Licania ; there was not a single large-flowered species among 

 them — no Parinariutn, no Couepia, &c. If I recollect rightly, 

 the tree which afforded the best Caraipe on the Naupes was one I 

 sent specimens of under the name of Lia 



The late Dr. Flight, F.R.S., very kindly determined the silica 

 in the ash of the bark. It proved to consist of something less 

 than a quarter of its weight. 



2nd June, 1880. 

 The bark was pounded in a mortar, which is easily done, and 

 dried in each case at 110° C. during several hours. Three portions 

 were examined : — 



No. 1. The entire bark. ' 

 „ 2. The outside (very thin layer). 

 „ H. The inside ( „ „ ). 



And the ash (burned quite white) amounted in each case to : — 

 No. 1. 21-92 per cent, of bark. 

 » 2. 18-19 

 „ 3. 23-02 

 I enclose No. 2. You might like to see it under the microscope. 

 I analysed No. 1 in a way. I drove ofE the silicic acid with 

 amoionium fluoride and after converting the fl.norides of the 

 residue into sulphates weighed them ; they amounted to 1-33 per 



