Micromegas

willy wagtail i think. edit: how to rotate? eggs would fall out otherwise.

Sandalwood, santalum spicatum for sure. I prefer it over quandong (S. acuminata) in looks and 'spirit' (only slightly, I like them both very much - quandong is less suitable for smaller gardens growing larger and faster). Sandalwood will grow into an elegant small tree with bluish foliage and produce fruit with an edible hard seed in about 3 years. I guess in 30-50 years it might become a medium-sized tree but is manageable in a small space. The heartwood will produce sandalwood oil within about 10-15 years. These used to grow from north of Adelaide right across to shark bay but were almost eradicated by unregulated harvesting for sandalwood oil in the early 20th century, millions of trees were removed roots and all. Santalum are semi-parasitic, getting water with their own roots but nutrients from host trees, which are typically acacias, she-oak and grasses, they can't really be planted as a hedge for this reason. A. acuminata is the common host where sandalwood is grown commercially in plantations because it is long-lived. In a small garden with no time to establish acuminata or other host trees (2-3 years before you plant the sandalwood near them), go to stateflora, buy yourself a tube of sandalwood and a tube of myoporum parviflora(um?) (a hardy groundcover) and plant them in the same hole so that the roots are almost already in contact. The sandalwood will use the myoporum as a host almost straight away. You could plant now and grow over summer with supplementary watering. Because they use so little resources (water, nutrients) they can grow beautifully within and among other native plants. Old hardwood can be carved. Ring stateflora first as they only have sandalwood sporadically, but you could also go for a quandong. There is a documentary that regularly pops up on NITV called 'Tribal Scent' which shows the relation of WA aboriginal people with sandalwood including its commercial use. Adding quandongs and sandalwood to my garden has augmented it wonderfully and with very little fail-rate, with many of them fruiting regularly. A must in any native garden but if your garden is small, one (of each) will be enough due to the parasitism. Cactus are also excellent hosts.

Not all types of cactus are affected the same. Some are more sensitive to cold, some are more palatable to bugs (i.e. scops and bridgessii have been more palatable to earwigs for me; very spiny plants protect the meristem by a cluster of spines etc.); age, aspect (i.e. microclimate), soil conditions (i.e. quantities of debris bugs might be living in) and so on. It is the case that unless you have a 'terminating' type cactus (i.e. see the 'sausage plant' which does naturally pup from the tip each year), trichocereus will not pup in this way unless the tip has been damaged, of that there is no question (although very rarely there will be a mutation of some kind but this would not be consistent across the whole garden). If they do it again next year it will be because the same or similar mechanism of damage has occurred. Indeed the plant on the right in the first pic shows the very distinct 'bending' that a meristem will get during damage, as one side continues to grow faster than the other before the tip terminates altogether, producing a somewhat hooked appearance. Spring is the time for damage to occur. The days are warm which causes the plants' growth hormones to be activated, and they develop sensitive new growth that grows only slowly at first. At the same time the nights can still be quite cold, and bugs are becoming more active. Early spring is the time for damage of this kind because later in the year the growth is faster and hardier. It will be either frost (or even a severe non-frosty cold snap) or an insect that has an annual life-cycle that kicks off in spring. It's not that the plants are collaborating to pup at the same time it has to do with a consistency in the environmental factors. I've attached a photo so you can compare. On this plant there is distinct annual scarring. This is because earwigs were eating the tip of the plant as it started to grow in spring. When the cause of damage was removed (by natural causes - hotter weather) the plant powered on and the damage grew out, and you can see how there are v-scars separated by unscarred growth - the plant's annual cycle. Had the plant not been large and healthy the earwigs might have removed the meristem and the plant would have terminated, as yours have done. This happened to me a lot early on in my garden but abated over time. Your plants do not show progressive growing-out of scarring. I suspect cold may be a critical factor. If it does not happen to all clones it is possible some are hardier than others.

Hello. As Quixote says, the primary reason for pupping of this kind is damage to the apical meristem. It appears to be the case and I would rule out any other factors as incidental. Many of the plants show callousing on the tip underneath the pups (i.e. post 8, pic 1). The tall ones also show scarring at intervals along the stem, indicating that the plants are being damaged annually at some point in the growth cycle (see first pic, plant on left, has scarring and has in fact terminated 12 inches from the bottom, and has scarring again another 12 or so inches up, and again at the tip - this indicates the plant has been through three growth cycles, growing about 1ft per year and being damaged early in the growth phase/spring in each cycle). Some of my plants do the same thing due to environmental factors. In my case they are either damaged by early spring frost (on sensitive plants like azurocereus) or by bugs on trichs (earwigs or snails). In most cases the damage is not significant enough to remove the apical meristem and the tip continues to grow out, leaving an annual scar that can be used to track the amount of growth per year. However if the damage does remove the apical meristem, because cactus grow from the top more or less, the plant will pup from the closest areoles remaining to the tip of the plant. In this case you get a situation resembling what you have in your garden. This is what has happened to your plants. Once plants start pupping in this way it is very common that the new pups also show a tendency to pup as well out of the areoles on their own tips, and you get the pup-on-pup scenario you have described. This likely has to do with the redistribution of growth hormones to the new apical meristems the plant has formed, its triggers for pupping having been hormonally activated. What you have there is response to damage that has upset the normal growth and behavioural pattern of your plants. Ultimately this will slow the growth down and is less than ideal. A pup-on-pup takes forever to grow out into a decent branch. You should look for what it is that is periodically damaging these plants, although I suspect the annual damage-pattern is possibly unique to the farm they were growing at, since it is clear that this has happened across their lifetime. You probably just picked them up after the damage occurred and in fact if they has been cut for sale prior to you collecting this may have prevented the meristem from growing out in time to offset the damage as they may have done in previous years. The best way to grow attractive large plants is to maintain the integrity of the apical meristem and have the plants pup naturally from the base, making a neat candelabra shape. This produces fatter, more stable, more attractive plants. Good luck. The plants look happy, it's just the early season mechanism of damage you need to identify. Long story short, it's not a result of jizzing.

How many willy wagtail eggs to make an omelette?! I couldn't work out why a bird was flying in and out of a cactus. You can't make it out too well but this is a white-browed babbler nest in an acacia obtusifolia.

Hey EG, thanks mate. I understand, it's a fine line. From my perspective the historical use of trichocereus and its allies is of paramount important to understanding these plants; civilisations rose, flourished, and declined (transformed, rose again, declined again) (partly) under the tutelary influence of trichocereus. 'Potency' is almost a misnomer with these plants in their historical use and I suppose discussing records of trichocereus use can bring out this point; in the archaeological record trichocereus shows itself to be far more contextual than this, embedded in a cosmological system of high sophistication. Fun as they once have been I agree the point-to-point rating of potency is not helpful or appropriate here these days. You're doing a good job buddy.

There was a recent thread asking about when the earliest recorded use of Trichocereus appears in the archaeological record, that does not appear to be edited to remove anything incriminating. This is one of my favourite topics so I was disappointed to see it closed. Full credit to the moderators for their stellar job here, but I am not clear why this is an inappropriate question to ask. Surely we are able to discuss the historical use of plant compounds on this forum and how this shows up in archaeology, art, literature, science? These are widely studied subjects in academia with widely available (but often esoteric) material, presumably will be part of EGA's subject matter, align closely with member's fields of interest, and would seem to have a place on the forum.

Hi, these are four cacti I recently planted. There's plenty more in my garden that need identificaiton but these ones especially intrigue me... The first one is a big fat clumping cactus. It came from a parent plant about two by two metres about 40cm high. Very impressive specimen. At the Adelaide Botanical Gardens they have the same plant labelled as Trichocereus Tephracanthus but the pictures I can find on the internet of this species look quite different. The second one I got a few long arms given to me which had broken off the parent - a three metre multi-branched cactus. They had been laying in long grass and had formed roots along the bottom. I thought it might be a trich, but the indentations where the spines are at confused me. Also the spines are about 30mm. The third one I bought from a nursery (unfortunately already a bit yellow). Thought it might be a bridgesii. Wishful thinking? The forth one I bought from Bunnings labeled as Cereus Pervianus. Then again I bought three cereus peruvianus from Bunnings and they all look quite different from one another. I really liked this one because of its rib pattern and spineless nature. Thanks a lot.

Considering it never got watered! A few plants got bigger quicker, like psycho0. And good to see you're still replying after all this time EG! I found a pic of the cereus in pic 4 but it's from 2016, it did pretty well too in its 10-years. all the others pictured i gave away or lost track of.

1000-post BUMP! Technically I wasted my 1000th post elsewhere. Here's an update on the bridgessii in the third picture of the first post, which was my 14th post ever, over 11 years ago. A lot can and does happen in 4104 days. Growing cactus is a bit like reconstructing ancient history with tree rings but on an individual level. Here's to the Corroboree!

aptenia cordifolia

viburnum (tinus)?

M24. Tereno. "The origin of tobacco" (Levi-Strauss Mythologiques Vol. 1 1969, p. 100) There was a woman who was a sorceress. She defiled caraguata plants (a Bromeliacex [sic], the central leaves of which are specked with red at the base) with menstrual blood and then served the plants to her husband as food. The husband, having been told about this by his son, announced that he was going into the bush to look for honey. After knocking the soles of his leather sandals together "to find honey more easily," he discovered a hive at the bottom of a tree and snake near by. He kept the pure honey for his son, and for his wife he prepared a mixture composed of honey and the flesh of snake embryos taken from the belly of the one he had killed. No sooner had the woman begun to eat her portion than her body started to itch. As she scratched herself, she announced to her husband that she was about to devour him. He ran away and climbed to the top of a tree where there was a parrot's nest. He kept the ogress quiet temporarily by throwing to her the three nestlings, one after the other. While she was chasing the largest which was trying to flutter away from her, the husband ran off in the direction of a pit that he himself had dug for the purpose of catching game. He avoided the pit, but the woman fell into it and was killed. The man filled in the hole and kept watch over it. An unknown plant eventually sprouted there. Out of curiosity the man dried the leaves in the sun; at nightfall he smoked in great secret. His companions caught him at it and asked what he was doing. Thus it was that men came to have tobacco (original in Baldus 3, pp. 220; 4, p.133.). Here a woman is dominant over man by the power of menstruation; she had the power to devour him but he tricks her, kills her and tobacco is given for man. The original 'natural' relationship (women over man, tobacco is of the earth/feminine) is transformed into a cultural relationship (man over women, dried and smoked tobacco is of culture/masculine), tobacco comes from woman as a natural product but later mediates the relationship of male dominance over women as a cultural product (in Tereno society). 'Giving' gender to objects is more subtle and important than it appears. Any assigning of gender more than as a biological necessity (that is, as symbolism) is cultural (you might argue even biological classification is cultural!). I think others covered that point pretty well above. But I don't think it is arbitrary exactly, nor a rabbit hole within each cultural system, because the gendering of each object is part of total system of categorization of the world in each social formation. In every case the assigning of gender to objects and processes will have some etiology or background conceptual rigidity within the system of the cultural formation in question. That's how culture makes the world, but pluralism is the rule. You can chase pluralism down the proverbial rabbit hole and succeed in an understanding of how and why objects are consistently provided gender by humanity, particularly in mythic thought. TI noted this in the idea of the vitality of dualism, of which human thought makes use to produce a stable reality.

Excerpt from: The Recipe for Rebirth: Cacao as Fish in the Mythology and Symbolism of the Ancient Maya Michael J. Grofe, Ph.D. Department of Native American Studies University of California at Davis September 23, 2007 As PDF: www.famsi.org/research/grofe/GrofeRecipeForRebirth.pdf There are in this document numerous references to other papers documenting ancient fermentation practices of Maya with Cacao, which was the primary way they processed the beans, that may be of interest. The fermentation process appears to be symbolically articulated in the Popul Vuh (as PDF: www.mesoweb.com/publications/Christenson/PopolVuh.pdf ) (One of the “Hero Twins” that saves humanity designs the way to process cacao into chocolate by fermentation). This is scratching the surface, might be of interest, good luck. Cacao and the Hero Twins While the Hero Twins are compared with terrestrial maize in the Popol Vuh, their simultaneous death and rebirth in the underworld strongly suggests an association with cacao. This pattern follows Martin’s observation that cacao is associated with the underworld, while maize appears as its analogue on the surface of the earth (Martin 2006:170). With their father likened to a cacao tree, the Hero Twins may metaphorically represent cacao seeds, and their fate in the underworld implicitly illustrates this comparison. When the Hero Twins come of age, they discover the ball game equipment of their father and uncle. Like their father and uncle before them, the twins soon anger the Lords of Death by playing loudly, and they are then invited to play another deadly game of ball in Xibalbá, but this -11- time something is different. These twins are smarter and more fearless, as they are endowed with magical powers (Tedlock 1996:111–19). The twins endure many tests, including the ball game, but they are not defeated. They pass through the houses of cold, knives, fire, jaguars, and bats, and they persist, despite even the decapitation of Hunahpu (Tedlock 1996:119–29). Eventually, after a final ball game, the Lords of Death tire of their adversaries’ ability to outsmart them, and they plot to kill the twins by inviting them to a drinking celebration. Here, the Lords of Death plan to burn the twins in a pit oven disguised as a vat used to prepare an intoxicating sweet drink. The precise word for the drink in the Popol Vuh is ki’, or ‘sweet drink’—commonly known as a boiled, fermented, maguey and honey mixture (Tedlock 1996:131, 245). The term ki’ confers the meaning of sweet, delicious, and rich throughout the Maya area, within both K’iche’ and Yucatec (Campbell 1971: 205; Bricker 1999: 127). Though often associated with maguey, ki’ also refers to chicha, a fermented drink made from a variety of fruits, berries or maize (Christenson 2003: 103). Henry Bruman characterizes the Maya lowlands as a region in which these kinds of fruit and honey drinks are the preferred alcoholic preparations, whereas maguey agaves are less prevalent in these wetter areas (Bruman 2000: 3; 91-97). The drink mentioned in the Popol Vuh may well have been fermented cacao wine made from the boiled pulp of the fresh cacao pod, known to have been made by the Maya and elsewhere in Mesoamerica (McNeil 2006:346; Henderson and Joyce 2006:143–45) . Considering the following passage, this remains a strong possibility. The Lords of Death invite the twins to jump over the drink, with the intention of pushing them into the fire. Instead, the twins decide to willingly jump directly into the flames. Here, like cacao bean children of their cacao pod father, the twins are burned and their bones are ground into powder on a metate, “just like hard corn is refined into flour” (Tedlock 1996:130, 131). This reference to corn would at first seem to suggest that the twins represent the preparation of maize. However, a closer analysis of this passage reveals that it parallels the complex, multi-stage process of refining cacao as described in Young (1996:74–79): -12- (1) the burial of the seeds and pulp (entering the underworld) (2) fermentation (fermented sweet drink) (3) roasting (jumping into the fire) (4) grinding (bones ground on metate) (5) mixing with water (poured into a river) This passage may metaphorically describe the origin of cacao use and the processing of the ritual drink. Girard (1979:252) interprets descriptions of previous worlds in the Popol Vuh as stages of social development, including the discovery of various agricultural and cultural technologies: We have in fact followed the process of formation of maize, fabrication of cigars, the origin of the calabash and the place where it was first known, incense, the ball game, the beginning of the potter's art, the use of the grinding stone, the evolution of the calendar, etc. As for cacao, we learn that two varieties existed….we have additional information in the Quiché manuscript of Francisco Garcia Calel Tzunpán, which mentions that a king, Hunahpú, was the discoverer of cacao and of cotton. The story of the death of the Hero Twins expands upon Girard’s thesis, providing the possible missing elements in the story of the origin of cacao, and a rationale for Hunahpu as its discoverer. The two varieties of cacao mentioned in the Popol Vuh include both cacao and pek, or pataxte (Theobroma bicolor), a species related to Theobroma cacao, but of inferior quality and taste (Tedlock 1996:111, 146, 352). Not all contemporary preparations of cacao are roasted, as some beans are ground after having dried in the sun (McNeil 2006:344–45). Likewise, there are other known Mesoamerican drinks made from fermented maize seeds, such as maize chicha and tesgüino, made from -13- germinated maize seeds, yet none of these are roasted or ground following fermentation (Bruman 2000:37; 95-97). Similar to the Ch’orti’ chilate, a common Maya concoction combines toasted maize with fermented and roasted cacao and red achiote to form a ritual drink known as q’atuj among the Tz’utujil (Stanzione 2000:189). The intimate connection between cacao and maize may indicate that the Hero Twins represent this sacred combination, but it becomes clear in the following passage that their self-sacrifice in the underworld specifically seems to emphasize cacao. The fresh pulp of the cacao pod surrounding each seed is used in the fermenting process and in the creation of cacao wine. Cacao seeds, unpalatable and bitter in their raw state, were probably initially discarded until it was discovered that the fermented and roasted seeds produce the novel flavor of chocolate. However the complex technology of cacao processing was discovered, the mythical retelling of this process in the K’iche’ narrative of the Hero Twins may reveal underlying spiritual and symbolic meanings associated with cacao. This metaphor of cacao processing in the Popol Vuh continues as the powdered bones of the twins are spilled into a river. When mixed with the water of the river, much like the last stage of making the cacao drink, the twins are soon resurrected as two fish-men, which then transform back into masked human forms of Hunahpu and Xbalanque: They were seen in the water by the people. The two of them looked like catfish [winaq kar, literally ‘person fish’] when their faces were seen by Xibalba. And having germinated in the waters, they appeared the day after that as two vagabonds... (Tedlock 1996:132, 280).

wow, interesting. they are all on the spectrum of pink-orange (sunburst, lol) that one would expect when mixing deep red with white, but the strike rate is amazing and so are the colo(u)rs and clearly a good cross to grow out. what it makes we wonder is where does the yellow schick come from? anyway they look great as a group planted together with their slightly different variations. well done. the F2 would have more a chance of reverting back to white yeah?

hey zelly out of all those seedlings you grew up since 2014, scop x grandi, what proportion of them had coloured flowers, did most, or only a few? the body looks as you would expect! but the flowers are really stunning.

Ernst Cassirer, the Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 1: Language A system of physical concepts must reflect the relations between the objective things as well as the nature of their mutual dependency, but this is only possible is so far as these concepts pertain from the very outset to definite, homogenous intellectual orientation. The object cannot be regarded as a naked thing in itself, independent of the essential categories of natural science [or language, myth, art etc.]: for only within these categories which are required to constitute its form can it be described at all… With this critical insight… science renounces its aspiration and its claim to an “immediate” grasp and communication of reality. It realizes that the only objectivization of which it is capable is, and must remain, mediation. And in this insight, another highly significant idealistic consequence is implicit. If the object of knowledge can be defined only through the medium of a particular logical and conceptual structure, we are forced to conclude that a variety of media will correspond to various structures of the object, to various meanings for “objective” relations. Even in “nature,” the physical object will not coincide absolutely with the chemical object, nor the chemical with the biological – because physical, chemical, biological knowledge frame their questions each from its own particular standpoint and, in accordance with this standpoint, subject the phenomena to a special interpretation and formation… this consequence in the development of idealistic thought… seems to negate… the unity of being [and]… threatens once more to disintegrate into a mere diversity of existing things. The One Being, to which thought holds fast and which it seems unable to relinquish without destroying its own form, eludes cognition. The more its metaphysical unity as a “thing in itself” is asserted, the more it evades all possibility of knowledge, until at last it is relegated entirely to the sphere of the unknowable and becomes a mere “X.” And to this rigid metaphysical absolute is juxtaposed the realm of phenomena, the true sphere of the knowable, with its enduring multiplicity, finiteness and relativity. But upon close scrutiny the fundamental postulate of unity is not discredited by this incredible diversity of the methods and objects of knowledge; it merely assumes a new form. True, the unity of knowledge can no longer be made certain and secure by referring knowledge in all its forms to a “simple” common object which is related to all these forms as the transcendent prototype to the empirical copies. But instead, a new task arises: to gather the various branches of science with their diverse methodologies – with all their recognized specificity and independence – into one system, whose separate parts precisely through their necessary diversity will complement and further one another. This postulate of a purely functional unity replaces the postulate of a unity of substance and origin, which lay at the core of the ancient concept of being. And this creates a new task for the philosophical critique of knowledge… It must ask whether the intellectual symbols by means of which the specialized disciplines reflect on and describe reality exist merely side by side or whether they are not diverse manifestations of the same basic human function. p.76-77 Essentially cognition is always oriented toward this essential aim, the articulation of the particular into a universal law and order. But beside this intellectual synthesis, which operates and expresses itself within a system of scientific concepts, the life of the human spirit as a whole knows other forms. They too can be designated as modes of “objectivization”: i.e., as means of raising the particular to the level of the universally valid; but they achieve this universal validity by methods entirely different from the logical concept and logical law. Every authentic function of the human spirit has this decisive characteristic in common with cognition: it does not copy but rather embodies an original, formative power. It does not express passively the mere fact that something is present but contains an independent energy of the human spirit through which the simple presence of the phenomenon assumes a definite “meaning,” a particular ideational content. This is as true of art as it is of [scientific] cognition; it is as true of myth as of religion. All live in particular image-world, which do not merely reflect the empirically given, but which rather produce it in accordance with an independent principle. Each of these functions creates its own symbolic forms which… enjoy equal rank as products of the human spirit. None of these forms can simply be reduced to, or derived from, the others; each of them designates a particular approach, in which and through which it constitutes its own aspect of “reality.” They are not different modes in which an independent reality manifests itself to the human spirit but roads by which the spirit proceeds towards its objectivization, i.e., its self-revelation. p.77-78 the senses and the spirit are… joined in a form of reciprocity and correlation… the pure function of the spirit must seek its concrete fulfilment in the sensory world. p.87 beside and above the world of perception, all these spheres [of meaning] produce freely their own world of symbols which is the true vehicle of their immanent development – a world whose inner quality is still wholly sensory, but which already discloses a formed sensibility, that is to say, a sensibility governed by the spirit. Here we no longer have to do with a sensible world that is simply given and present, but with a system of diverse sensory factors which are produced by some form of free creation. p.87

Care to elaborate? Are you basing this on finding alleged Buddhist relics in the riverland (presumably as surface deposits), or are you saying Buddhists were in Australia in ancient times as or with aboriginals, or are you saying that the Ngawait developed a cultural form that approximates Bon Buddhism, or maybe even that they 'intuited' this form of Buddhism in some spiritual/metaphysical way? In which paper does RH Matthews state that he was part of a Masonic order? Matthews' potential connection to a Masonic lodge is mentioned by Martin Thomas here: http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p99461/mobile/ch01.html Thomas states that " I get a sense of him as a cabalistic person. His extensive documentation of ceremonial life is an indication of how he was drawn towards matters of secrecy. A cryptic reference in his diary, ‘Went to Lodge’ at an address in Sydney, suggests he may have been involved in a Masonic order. Although I can find no further evidence concerning this, it is worth mentioning that Mathews’ eldest son Hamilton attained seniority as a freemason and that Masonic connections frequently pass from father to son". Thomas wrote a biography of Matthews which won the 2012 Australia National Biography award: https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/biography-autobiography/The-Many-Worlds-of-RH-Mathews-Martin-Thomas-9781741757811 If there was definitive mention in one of Matthews own articles that he was a freemason, and had some interaction with masonic aboriginals no less, this would be of considerable interest within this specialised field. The link between Australian initiation rites and Masonic rites with respect to secrecy is interesting I had never encountered that idea before. Again the information you are indicating might be a contribution to this. The relationship between anthropologists and aboriginals in Australia is complex. Today, some aboriginal communities are rightfully concerned about the sensitive information recorded by anthropologists that is now in the public record or available in the literature. In other cases communities and languages are being revived from this information. Those were different times, in the colonial process of 'making' modern Australia and in the field of anthropology, which was only young. I cannot explore this facet of the problem here but I do not think it was a case of anthropologists and missionaries etc. simply tricking people into sharing their sacred knowledge. I do not have any background of the corpus of knowledge relating to RH Matthews as this is not my field of study, although I have read some of his works. You are making some very bold claims about his character. Interestingly Matthews was a subject of much diatribe during his life as well, much of which appears unfounded. He seems to have had rapport with aboriginal people. Surely, secret knowledge was damaged in Australia as a result of the all-round process of colonialism: development, disease, violent repression by people who didn't even register aboriginals as people. By comparison, Matthews integrated and talked with aboriginal communities and was taken into their trust. It is a very extreme claim that Matthews 'stole' this knowledge and then directed people to those areas for it to be destroyed once and for all, and it seems important someone counterbalance what you have written in your post. If he wanted this knowledge destroyed, why did he write so much of it down - and information which would be used extensively (as well as corroborated) by later anthropologists Radcliffe-Borwn, Elkin and Tindale, whose ability to raise the public awareness of aboriginal religion and sophisticated worldview is no doubt part of the growing recognition of aboriginal people, knowledge and rights in Australia (and which has been used in successful land claims), notwithstanding the distance we have yet to cover. Today, aboriginal people are slowly having opportunities to reassert their knowledge - to gain a voice - and part of the groundwork is that some few people early on recognized they had knowledge to assert, even if it was expressed in the voice of the anthropologist. Surely it would have been better if the knowledge had never been disturbed but this is never an option in conquest. Can you please direct me to Matthews maps of the extent of subincision in Australia which you mention, I thought these were only produced later by Elkin, and then Tindale, but using some of Matthew's data. I would be interested in seeing the artifacts you found.

I can't tell if you are being serious or not but this is a total wind up. More interesting when I bothered to google it, is that it seems to be a promotional stunt by McKennite, a McKenna fan webpage (who seem to have started the rumour) to promote an actual 2016 documentary about Terrence McKenna with which the site is connected. I.e. to search for Jim Carrey playing Terrence McKenna you end up finding out about the actual documentary. You also can't read the credits in that video, all fuzzy. Jim Carry is not associated with any of the quotes he supposedly said about psychedelics. However I reckon Jim Carrey would do a pretty good Terrance McKenna, but yes the age difference would be a problem if the movie was the book, and not his entire life. Making that book into a movie would be a challenge.

What we call the world of perception, far from being a mere formless mass of impressions, already includes definite fundamental and original forms of synthesis. Without this, without the synthesis of apprehension, reproduction, and recognition, we should have neither a perceiving nor a thinking ego – there would be an object neither of pure thought nor of empirical perception. At the beginning of the Critique of Pure Reason [Kant] sensation and understanding are differentiated as the two stems of human knowledge (which may, however, have sprung from a common root that is unknown to us). Here the opposition between the two, and their possible common factor, seemingly continued to be understood in a realistic sense: sensibility and understanding belong to different strata of existence, although both may have a common root in a primal stratum of being which precedes all empirical separations but which we cannot grasp or determine more closely. The analytic of the pure understanding, however, viewing the relationship from an entirely different standpoint, drastically shifts the point where sensation and understanding meet, as well as the point where they separate. For the unity between the two is no longer sought in an unknown foundation of things; rather, one might say, it is sought in the heart of knowledge itself. If this unity is at all discoverable, it must be grounded not so much in the essence of absolute being as in an original function of theoretical knowledge, and it is through this function that it must be intelligible. Kant designated this original function as the “synthetic unity of apperception”; it became the supreme point to which all uses of the understanding, even all logic and with it transcendental philosophy, must relate. And this supreme point, this focus on spiritual activity, is one and the same for all “faculties” of the spirit: hence it is the same for the understanding and for sensation. The “I think,” the expression of pure apperception, must be able to accompany all my representations: “for otherwise something would be represented in me which could not be thought; in other words, the representation would be either impossible, or at least be, in relation to me, nothing.” Here, then, a universal condition is established which applies equally to sensory and to purely intellectual representations. In transcendental apperception Kant finds a “radical faculty of all our knowledge,” to which both can equally be related and in which they are indissolubly linked. This means there cannot be any such thing as an isolated, “merely sensory” consciousness – that is, a consciousness remaining outside of any determination by the theoretical signification and preceding them as an independent datum. Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 3: The Phenomenology of Knowledge (Engl. Trans 1957 [1929]), p.8

I recently acquired a cutting of what is being called the South Australian Short-spined Tersheckii. I can't see how this plant is a tersheckii at all it's just so skinny in comparison but the mouthful of a name might stick! I do think it is one of the best finds for a while though, it's a beauty. I had never seen this plant close up until i received a cutting. In the witches market in Chiclayo on the north central andean coast of peru I had come across san pedro being sold there for purposes of divination; among the standard near-spineless pachanoi forms there was a multi-ribbed but 'skinny' san pedro that always has piqued my interest as being unique. I never saw anything like it elsewhere. I don't think these plants are the same, but there is a decided similarity which I was surprised to discover.

yes, both, more so tip 1 on left in godless's pic if they are not the same, and especially in zed's plump rooted version there is a lot of validus in there aesthetically speaking if not genetics. but what if from the same bunch of seeds as the Field's validus! Then of course the question whether my validus, which was collected from a suburban house in adelaide (demolished) is the same as Fields, i.e. is a direct clone or a seed grown plant. that would be a different topic. re: whether the sa ss terk (i'll use the name for now haha!) is a imported cutting or seed grown goes back to the original post - a plant in chiclayo witches market that is remarkably similar! yes there is much we will never know, until maybe cactus genetic bar-code device!

I think godless's post settles it, those two are not the same plant. that is also quite interesting how much more like the one on the left is starting to look like validus. if that was called SA SS Validus that would be more appropriate than calling the other one SA SS terk! so the verdict is that these are grown from seed in Australia, not imported as cuttings? what about validus?

Do you think Peruvians and Bolivians might've traded cacti at some point? They traded iconography. Viracocha is on a spectrum of development from the chavin staff god. but from araequipa to La Paz nothing but standard cuzco/peru/shoenii then terks, pasacanas then bridgessii. only thing in witches markets in la paz was bridgessii. but that was not an exhaustive search. if they traded, why not pachs growing today in La Paz? i suspect the difference between pach, terk and bridgessii led to fine-scale differences in cultural development in art and religion. tihuanaco deities look right off at the horizon, chavin deities are looking right at you, huari intermediate. good posts about the SS all, very interesting if the ones you have spooge that look different were from the SS. be interesting to see what they do for us all under cultivation. thunder i reckon any skinny 'rare form' is a hybrid of some kind. my thoughts are that a 'skinny' terk is a hybrid, not pure, because they should be massive in original form. zed re: cuts being skinny and then getting fat, yes absolutely. but that one you have, i think, will not get significantly fatter. i lump that in with werdermannianus from adelaide bot gardens. i'm a total hack at ID. head strong, probably wrong. to look for the original SS if it came from Peru i'd say either a shaman grew a hyrid on the coast where mesa work is abundant, or was traded down from huancabamba, where the 'best' magical cactus come from they say and probably where chiclayo plants are sourced. but i only saw a few spineless pach in huancabamba when i went there but we're going way back now, 2007, i wasn't looking closely. spine number is linked to magic, might have selectively bred a multi-ribbed plant for some process of divination. massive speculation but why not!

i thought about it as well and did some research, big gamble for me i reckon the cold would knock the top off every year, or one year, $500 gone. in your location though spooge i reckon it's good to go.