382 PAREIRA BRAVA. 



1873. of myrrh are numerous, well-preserved, pressed and drietl 

 specimens of the tree, which ought to include, in addition to 

 foliage, the flowers and fruits ; specimens of the exudation of 

 the tree should also be collected, in order that competent 

 persons may pronounce whether it is true myrrh or not. Infor- 

 mation as to the collection of the drug in any one of the locali- 

 ties named could not fail to be of interest. 



The myrrh-trees appear to be of low stature and unattractive 

 aspect, rigid, often spiny, with scanty foliage, minute flowers 

 and small, oval, dry berries. [TV. Repert. f. Pharm. xxii. 624.] 



ON PAREIRA BRAVA. 



(Translated with Comments (with the Original Illustrations) in the 

 Journal de Pharmacie et de Chimie, Octobre (1875), 282.) 



1873. THE botanical origin of the various stems and roots known as 



Pareira brava is extremely obscure. By most writers the drug- 

 is referred without question to Cissampelos Pareira, Linn., a 

 climbing plant of the order Menispennacew growing in the 

 tropical regions of both the Old and New World. 



Some years ago the difficulty of purchasing Pareira Brava of 

 good quality in London induced me to seek a supply in the 

 West Indies. I accordingly procured on behalf of the firm of 

 which I was then a member, a quantity of the stems and roots 

 Cissampelos of Cissampelos Pareira, L., collected in Jamaica under the super- 

 Pareira. vision of Mr. N. Wilson, director of the Bath Botanical Garden 

 in that island. The first importation was accompanied by 

 herbarium specimens of the plant, the examination of which 

 removed all doubts as to its origin. I also obtained specimens 

 of stems of Cissampelos Pareira similarly authenticated, from 

 correspondents in Trinidad, Brazil and Ceylon. 



From these materials it at once became evident that the long- 

 accepted statement that Pareira Brava is derived from Cissam- 

 pelos Pareira, Linn., was erroneous. 1 In fact neither the stem nor 



1 This fact was first pointed out in the Pharmacopoeia of India, 1868, p. 8, 

 note. 



