Concerning the Identity of commercial Mimosa root bark

[entropymancer]

I wrote this during the course of investigating some non-DMT alkaloids that people have been reportedly extracting from Mimosa root bark (commonly called "jungle spice"). One of the biggest unanswered questions I ran across was: Do we really know that the rootbark which is being sold is Mimosa hostilis? It turns out there doesn't seem to be a really satisfactory answer to that question (unless someone has some information I don't.. if you do, please share).

Nevertheless I thought this discussion would be of interest to the ethnobotanical community here. It discusses the various factors which prevent us from discerning whether the commercial rootbark is M hostilis. This is excerpted from my much larger Jungle Spice - Mystery Alkaloids of Mimosa Rootbark discussion at the DMT Nexus.

V. Botanical Confustication

I'll say right off the bat that this section is less than satisfactory in terms of drawing any concrete conclusions. None of the vendors I contacted had any idea what color flowers were produced by the trees our root bark comes from, though some said they'd send the question down the line. At the very least, I can outline the various issues that seem to be confusing the issue.

V.1 Hostilis? Tenuiflora? Verrucosa?!?!

The very first issue that I'm not satisfied with is the extent to which Mimosa hostilis and Mimosa tenuiflora are identical. It's certainly well established in the literature that these Latin binomials are synonymous. There is no doubt that M hostilis and M tenuiflora are both legitimate names to apply to the white-flowering tree from which the bark is theoretically being harvested. On the other hand, there are some indications that the term M tenuiflora may sometimes be applied to another Mimosa tree which does not have white blooms.

In Mexico, following some catastrophic events in the '80s, the tannins in M tenuiflora rootbark, called "tepescohuite", have been hailed as a miracle-treatment for burns when applied as a topical ointment. This seems to have given rise to a proliferation of tepescohuite throughout southern Mexico, and it seems likely that sources distributing Mexican root bark are probably distributing bark from the tepescohuite. The problem is, I'm not convinced that all of this tepescohuite is actually M tenuiflora.

There are several vendors peddling Mimosa tannin-based ointment who seem to indicate that their Mimosa has a bright yellow flower, though it's still claimed to be Mimosa tenuiflora. Less frequently, there are vendors distributing similar preparations who identify their Mimosa as having a bright pink flower. It seems reasonable that, since there was such a high demand for the ointment, and several Mimosa species have similar root barks, someone may have unknowingly or unscrupulously begun propagating another species as tepescohuite. The possibility of this misidentification might be of interest to any supplier obtaining their product from Mexico. On the other hand, I've seen some popular speculation that the Mexican root bark has a higher alkaloid content, so the possibility of a misidentification doesn't necessarily mean an inferior product for extracting purposes.

 

Figure X. Images associated with Mexican tepescohuite

 

 

Also casting doubt on the identity of the root bark are the seeds. Consider what Torsten of Shaman Australis had to say:

Mimosa species can contain some nasty alkaloids, which is why correct identification is paramount in my opinion. That is why I am so appalled at the callous nature of MHRB farmers, distributors and retailers. I am also a little surprised at the ignorance of the customers. I mean seriously, you folks seem to only care about the fact that a plant contains DMT regardless of what else you might consume along with it.

So is there a conspiracy to supply dodgy material? I don't know. All I know is that two of the largest MHRB farmers also supply seed from their plantations to various wholesalers and retailers. I have purchased plenty of this seed for my own shop and have bought seed from most major retailers. NONE of it has turned out to be M.hostilis.

The seeds which have been distributed as M hostilis seem to almost invariably produce plants that are of the genus Mimosa, but are definitely not M tenuiflora. I have yet to find a verified report of any vendor selling "M hostilis seeds" that actually give rise to an M hostilis tree. Most of the "M hostilis seeds" available these days appear to produce Mimosa verrucosa trees, including the seeds from BouncingBearBotanicals and Shaman Palace.

Mimosa verrucosa is the "Jurema branca" used by some indigenous South American populations (in contrast to "Jurema preta", which is our old friend M tenuiflora). However, it appears that nomenclature varies among indigenous populations in South America, which may be causing misidentification by miscommunication. Consider the following quote from a 1998 MAPS Newsletter

After interviewing many people, and participating in different Jurema rituals with the Indians, I also realized that the Jurema they drink in their brew is not Mimosa hostilis, but the root bark from Mimosa verucosa. Different tribes will call M. hostilis, the Jurema Negra and M. verucosa, the Jurema Branca, as well as other tribes call M. verucosa, the Jurema Negra. That means that when they say that they drink Jurema Negra, it does not necessarily mean they are drinking M. hostilis, but M. verucosa which is called both: Jurema Branca and Jurema Negra.

In years past, there were misidentified seeds that produced Mimosa pudica or even Mimosa scabrella, but these appear to have faded from the marketplace. Sometimes genuine seeds have been acquired through trades with people in possession of genuine specimens. Live cuttings of genuine specimens are also sometimes traded amongst the ethnobotanical community.

The scarcity of genuine seeds and the concurrent abundance of misidentified samples begs the question: Have the imported root bark samples been similarly misidentified? After all, it doesn't make much sense that a vendor would be able to acquire legitimate Mimosa tenuiflora root bark, but unable to acquire legitimate seeds from the same source. On top of this, Torsten of Shaman Australis reports having seen a photo of the Mimosa plantation from which a major vendor obtains it's root bark, and the flowers on the trees were pink.

Mimosa tenuiflora has white flowers. It does not have pink flowers, or purple flowers, or yellow flowers.

As you can see, this leaves us with a nicely jumbled picture that casts a significant shadow of doubt over the botanical identity of the root bark that's being imported.

V.2 So what have we been extracting from, and does it matter?

Considering the evidence, I think we can say with a fair degree of confidence that the root bark that everyone has been extracting is Jurema. The question is whether it's Jurema preta (M hostilis) or Jurema branca (M verrucosa). I have a hard time imagining that 100% of the vendors have been sold the "wrong" species of Jurema, so I'd wager that at least some vendors are probably selling legitimate M hostilis root bark. Considering the scarcity of genuine seeds, I'd be hesitant to speculate that genuine M hostilis root bark is prevalent on the market. That said, it seems exceedingly likely that some of the root bark available online is in fact M verrucosa. Unfortunately, unless vendors can find out what color flowers their suppliers' trees produce, it is impossible to speculate on the degree to which M verrucosa is being sold as M hostilis.

This brings us to the second question, does it really matter? Despite all of the indications that some of the bark may not be from M hostilis, I haven't heard any confirmed reports of bunk batches of bark being sold. We're all familiar with the periodic reports of low-yielding bark from various vendors, but these samples still seem to contain N,N-DMT in significant concentrations (>0.2%). I vaguely recall an unsubstantiated report of a person extracting a white crystalline solid that looks like spice, but was completely lacking in physiological activity; this could indicate that the root bark used was from another species, but without multiple consistent reports, I can't lend it too much significance.

So for those who are concerned solely with extracting the N,N-DMT, the answer is: No, it doesn't really matter whether the rootbark you've been buying is actually M tenuiflora. Whatever it is, it serves as an effective source of DMT, with minimal fat content to contaminate the extraction product. There has been some speculation about the possible dangers of a misidentified root bark, and the most frequent concern is that the unknown bark may contain mimosine, a toxic clastogen (chromosome-breaking chemical).

Mimosine has been isolated from M pudica, as well as a few other species. According to K Trout, no studies have been done to establish the chemical makeup of M verrucosa root bark, so it is impossible to speculate one way or the other about whether mimosine may be present in popularly extracted root bark. If we want to assume for safety's sake that it is present in the bark, it appears easy to make certain it doesn't end up in the final product. Mimosine is much more polar than DMT, and is practically insoluble in higher alcohols, ether, benzene, chloroform, etc. This means that very little mimosine is apt to end up in the nonpolar pulls when you extract the DMT freebase. Since mimosine is substantially more soluble in water than in nonpolar solvents, the sodium carbonate wash (as described in Vovin's tek) ought to remove any residual mimosine.

So that's all well and good for the average spice extractor, but what about the folks pulling jungle spice? It is certainly tempting to claim that some of the variability among different jungle spice extractions can be accounted for as the result of different species of mimosa being sold as the same product. Unfortunately, such a claim would be completely indefensible. The truth is, we don't know how much of the root bark on the market comes from which species. It's entirely possible that misidentified rootbark is a significant factor in jungle spice extraction, but until someone runs extractions of jungle spice on confirmed samples of M tenuiflora and M verrucosa, we just don't know.

There is also the possibility that a large amount of the variation in the jungle spice may be accounted for by differences in environment or harvesting conditions. Maybe the tree needs ample access to a particular nutrient in the soil to produce a good portion of jungle spice. Maybe the quantity of this alkaloid fraction varies with the time of year, or even with the time of day. Maybe the tree must reach a certain age before it begins producing it. Or a million other things. Or maybe all of the variability has to do with unrecognized nuances in the extraction process. As I said, this section is far from satisfying, and leaves open a lot of loose ends, but that's how it stands today.

It is also worth mentioning that this confusion over the botanical identity of the available root bark may explain why a few people have been unsuccessful in attempting to verify Jonathan Ott's claims that jurema is orally active without an added MAOI. The individuals who were unsuccessful may have been using M verrucosa while Ott was using M tenuiflora.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Trimethylxanthine

[Torsten]

Great summary. Mind you my quotes are now a few months/years old and things change. There are now reliable seed sources in Brazil [bulk] and all around the world from collectors who got some good seed from a member on this forum. However, i think it will still be years before the seed trade could be regarded as reliable. For the moment most retailers still have the pink flowered seed.

As for root bark, I don't think much has changed. The main sellers are still those who have pink flowered plants. Some of them know they have the wrong species, but don't care because they just sell for the effect and verrucosa works well. Some of them insist that M.hostilis has pink flowers and hence their material is accurately labelled as far as they are concerned.

retailers by and large don't care as long as the bark works, but even if they did care, I doubt they would get much reliable info for the reasons outlined above. I only got these admissions because I grew their seed and proved to them that they were wrong.

[friendly]

I saw some properly identified M. scabrella rb, but the one who had it was unable to obtain any results from it. It was supplied as being synonymous with M. verracosa.

There is M. hostilis rb from Brazil that has been purportedly been used for high return extractions quite successfully.

I have seen two of these Brazillian root bark types, one red and the other purple. The purple has (supposedly) a better yield, over 1% consistently.

The main supplier of Mexican rb has sometimes claimed yields over 10% from his material and claims there are other active alkaloids involved. Has anyone been able to confirm this?

I have a hard time believing the yield, but do not question that there may be other actives involved.

Edited April 4, 2008 by friendly