172 PHARMACOPEIAL DRUGS 



statement of Mutis as correct, and, moreover, believing 

 the illustration given by Piso (511) of the true ipe- 

 cacuanha plant to represent the specimen he received 

 from Mutis, in 1781 gave to it the name Psychotria 

 emetica, Mutis. 



To Dr. Gomez (271, 272), who in 1800 returned from 

 Brazil, is finally due the credit of having corrected this 

 error. He re-established the nearly forgotten botanical 

 character of true ipecacuanha in his memoir published 

 at Lisbon in 1801, wherein he describes and figures the 

 plant, and especially distinguishes it from Psychotria 

 emetica, Mutis. 



Having donated some specimens of the plant in his 

 possession to his fellow countryman, F. A. Brotero 

 (100), professor of botany, Coimbra, the latter pub- 

 lished an account of it, 1802, in the Trans. Linn. Soc., 

 naming it Callicocca Ipecacuanha (100), but gave no 

 credit to the source of his information, which consider- 

 ably chagrined Gomez (422). Twelve years later, 

 Brotero left a copy of his article with a botanist by the 

 name of Hectot, of Nantes, who communicated it to 

 M. Tussac (656a), and the latter, in publishing it, gave 

 to the drug described the name Cephaelis Ipecacuanha, 

 also laying stress upon its distinction from Psychotria 

 emetica, Mutis, perhaps without having any knowledge 

 of Gomez' paper published in 1801. 



In 1820, A. Richard (550) again called attention to 

 this distinction, but also without giving proper credit 

 to Gomez, with the result that later authorities fre- 

 quently quote the true ipecacuanha root under the 

 name, Cephaelis Ipecacuanha, A. Richard. 



As is true of other new drugs, ipecacuanha in its 

 early days suffered much from adulteration. One of 



