Jump to content
The Corroboree

Illustro

Members2
  • Content count

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Illustro


  1. Alcohol will keep a large concentration of leaves fresh for a very long time. Even honey will keep them fresh for decades (if using honey you may need to dehydrate them a bit), but alcohol is much easier to deal with when it comes to ingestion.

    If you are using normal proof spirits, you could probably get away with about a 70:30 khat:alc ratio. Even fresh leaves, alcohol becomes septic at around 10-15% with a general threshold of around 2% - so just consider how concentrated your spirits are and how much water your leaves will add to the mix.

    I remember reading an amateur research article on khat in general, stating that it contained notable amounts of l-ascorbate (vit. c) and other interesting nutrients. Hardly sounds like the demonic curse that it has been made out to be, remember kiddies - everything in moderation.

    I have access to over 230 research papers on Catha edulis, i mean to read them but i simply do not have the time - i feel kinda guilty having access to this great information and not sharing!

    Here is the introduction and a figure from an article which i think is very relevant to this thread:

    Chappell, J.; Lee, M. 2009. Cathinone preservation in khat evidence via drying. In. Forensic Science International, volume 195 pp 108-120. Drug Enforcement Administration, Western Laboratory, 390 Main Street, Room 700, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA.

    A primary concern with the forensic analysis of the khat plant (Catha edulis) has been the need to

    preserve the principle psychoactive component, cathinone, which converts to the less-active substance,

    cathine, after harvesting. The loss of cathinone has serious legal implications since it is a Schedule I

    controlled substance under federal regulations in the United States, while cathine is Schedule IV. A

    common misconception is that cathinone is highly unstable once the plant is harvested, and may be

    undetectable upon drying and prolonged storage. However, drying the plant material will preserve

    cathinone. Numerous seizures of a dried form of khat (referred to as ‘‘graba’’ in the United States) have

    been made in recent years, suggesting that drying the plant material is a viable approach to preserve khat

    evidence for both storage and reanalysis. A qualitative and quantitative study of the composition of khat

    samples seized as dried plant material has found the khat alkaloids to be relatively stable for a monitored

    period of 3 years, and cathinone has remained identifiable while stored at room temperature for over 10

    years. Studies of green khat (received moist) have also determined that drying the moist leaves at either

    room temperature or by the application of heat are suitable methods to preserve cathinone in the dried

    material. These findings demonstrate that cathinone persists in dried khat for a time frame of several

    years, and simple drying techniques are an effective means to preserve seized khat evidence for longterm

    storage.

    It appears you would be safe just drying the leaves at room temperature! It makes sense when you consider how robust plant cells are, it is easy to be sucked in by common knowledge sometimes. But common/social knowledge should never underestimated! There are many things that science is entirely capable of over-looking, this article may prove that these alkaloids are entirely stable but there may be some grain of truth to the rapid oxidation argument.

    Indigo; how about you do a bio-assay for us? I'm sure you wouldn't mind getting high in the name of science? If you end up with a significant amount of leaves, perhaps you could dry some out then in one years time compare the effects of two doses of equal leaf count? (fresh leaf vs. one year old dry leaf) B)


  2. personally, i would buy a couple bottles of cheap high proof spirits and just store your fresh leaves from the prunings in a large jar full of the alcohol until you wish to use it. the alcohol should kerb much of the oxidation and will hopefully absorb a large portion of the alkaloids. after a few months just filter out and throw away the leaves (you could probably still chew them if you wish) and enjoy a nice cathinone tipple to sooth that runny nose.


  3. in israel they make herbal pills from khat extract that has been compared closely with e.

    but normally to get that kind of dose from khat you would have to spend several hours chewing leaves and still be rather far off.

    i think that khat is closest you will probably get to a e-like buzz, mescaline also has some very euphoric qualities but i wouldnt compare it to e.

    but, a half dose of mescaline (about the equivalent of 6" san pedro) plus coffee and some khat or other amphetamines will make you munt pretty hard. but i find i become very arrogant and cocky when i mix any kind of stimulant with mescaline, even caffeine and especially amphetamines - its worth noting that alcohol makes my aggression even worse so i avoid it like the plague. its also worth noting i dont become at all like this on mescaline or stimulants when taken separately.

    when i use this mix i get the same euphoric delirious muntedness of e but without the lovey-fuzzy vibe, i get more of a total-asshole-fuzzy vibe. it may be entirely personal, i only know a few people who have used this mix and they all experience widely varying results between them.


  4. That is a blue myrtle like the others have said, i love myrtles tho - they have alot of character plus they grow thousands of berries when mature.

    Bunnings is great, i have bought some my finest trichs from bunnings - i got a beautiful t. scop and two different t. peruvianus (one more kk242 the other more macrogonus) from bunnings.

    I may have just been lucky, but its work keeping any eye out.


  5. #2 Stenocereus spp - possibly griseus. Stenocereus fruit are edible, never tried it - but i heard they are delicious.

    Any idea what those leafy plants are? They look like they could possibly be narrrow leaf khat, or some Acacia species. Kinda hard to tell from pic, im probably wrong but it could be worthwhile looking into them further also.


  6. I know a few veteran CSSNZ members, they all have the same T. pachanoi x T. scopulicola San Pedros in their gardens. I have never seen a CSSNZ member with a non-hybridized BC San Pedro, they all seem to have these hybrids.

    All i have heard is this San Pedro breed has been around for decades, proliferated and sold by members to the public. One member has a garden full of these hybrids, they said they got their first cutting in the early 80's - they knew they were actually hybrids but they were simply the only readily-available Trichocereus cacti in NZ at the time and they also weren't concerned about how true their Trichocereus species were.


  7. I tried a berry today, a subtle and unique flavor - not very sweet but very different. I am pretty confident now that it is F. boliviana, it also turns out it is considered a weed here :scratchhead:

    Thanks for the help culebra, i would still be researching the Solanaceae family if it wasnt for you lol.

    Cheers!


  8. I think you may be right, i jumped the gun a bit and made bit of a faux pas by using the leaf physiology and general flower appearance to justify the family - in what i believed was an easy pick. The adnate sepals should have been a dead give away, i kinda over looked that.

    Meh, i have never bothered studying any non-food crop Solanaceae plants till now - i might go examine some datura flowers tomorrow.

    Cheers.

    Edit: Yep, F. boliviana or dependens or other close relative. I still can't believe its not in the Solanaceae family, i just screams nightshade lol.

    I will see if i can find anything interesting on the species, once i round it down - cheers man.


  9. Cheers guys B)

    One of them (with the deeper red flowers) is also pupping. It has one coming out the side, very slowly tho - maybe due to it spending so much resources on flowering. Everyone i show them to, sees the flowers and finally realize why i like to collect cacti lol - you can almost hear them thinking "ohhhh i understand now" haha.


  10. My two 'Madisons' have started flowering for the first time, pretty prolifically too - thought it was worth the share. They have about 14 flowers each, in various stages.

    Enjoy.

    Most pictures between 1024x768 and 1600x1200, slow internet users beware.


  11. Hey guys,

    I was doing some work down the back of my place the other day and noticed this tree growing in a thicket. I am very unfamiliar with the Solanaceae tree species, i have never really been too interested in Brugs and Datura species etc - but this tree really peaked my interest. The masses of bright pink flowers made this plant hard for me to leave unknown, i did some research - but came up empty handed. I believe it was seed dispersed possibly from a large private Victorian garden a few hundred meters away - but that is all the leads i have on its origins.

    Flower: Calyx, Corolla & Androceum all adnate, borne on an epigynous zone. Eight stamens (staggered), four petals (valvate) and four sepals (also valvate).

    Reference is in centimeters.

    Any info would be appreciated, cheers!


  12. Looks like Myrtillocactus geometrizans

    ^^^

    They are one of my favorite cacti also, they just look so cool - plus they flower prolifically with a small white flower from every aerole. If you get a few of them together they will pollinate and produce potentially 1000's of little cacti blueberries that are very much edible, and apparently very good for you. A very cool cactus!


  13. Is your green house visible from the road? If its not then i would be seriously considering who you know who knows where your collection is and what was in it. If i were you i would be putting a lot of thought into evidence, motive and suspects. The answers to who did it are probably in your yard somewhere, or on the street - ask the people you know and judge their reactions.

    This has made me paranoid about my best friends knowing what i have, apart from them no-one else knows. But you really just never know, i might go tell them i sold them all - just to be sure.

    As for you, best of luck getting them back - it is not impossible.


  14. I just googled it lol. I suspected that bridgesii had been first described by Britton & Rose so i just googled: "bridgesii britton rose".

    And your right about the differences (but those are actually a genotypical variations btw :wink: ) bridgesii are by far the skinniest Trichocereus species i have come across personally. I know there is a species which i think is thinner but i cant bring it to mind right now. So yeah, bridgesii generally are very skinny - there is a some variant going around that is much fatter with shorter spines - but i highly suspect hybridization. And the spines do tend to go in random directions with some varieties, but then again some varieties have relatively uniform spine formations (usually the long spined varieties).


  15. People tend to make a lot of assumptions in this field, fuck i know i do all the time.

    To me, if we are going to start describing and defining certain cacti species and what-not the original description of the species IS the real and only description of the species - the first cactus under that species to be described by a botanist IS the true definer. If someone finds a different variety later on, they can call it bridgesii - fine. But they must make it a subspecies, not try to label it as a normal bridgesii. If they don't do this it will just create confusion and incredible amounts of misinformation.

    So, if T. bridgesii is going to be described and classified. It can only be described from its original documentation by Britton & Rose, which says:

    Britton & Rose's The Cactaceae

    6. Trichocereus bridgesii (Salm-Dyck).

    Description:

    Tall, 2 to 5 meters high, more or less branching, pale green, a little glaucous; branches 1 to 1.5 dm in diameter, 4 to 8-ribbed; ribs obtuse, separated by broad but shallow intervals; areoles large, about 2 cm apart; spines 2 to 6, yellowish, acicular to subulate, very unequal, sometimes 10 cm long, not swollen at base; flowers large, 18 cm long; flower-tube 5 to 6 cm long; throat broad; inner perianth-segments oblong, perhaps white, 5 to 6 cm long; scales on ovary and flower-tube small, sometimes only 3 to 4 mm long, scattered, bearing numerous hairs in their axils; fruit scaly, long-hairy, 5 to 6 cm long.

    Distribution: About La Paz, Bolivia, where it is frequently grown as a hedge plant or placed on the tops of walls for the protection of gardens.

    As you can see that is different to what you assumed a true bridgesii is meant to look, but it does support your argument over the basal lobe on the spines indicating another species or hybrid. But when you consider the impact environmental factors can have on the phenotypes, it makes it a lot harder to accurately describe and distinguish species.

    When cacti experience extensive heat and sun shine, it is well documented that they grow more spines than usual and create thicker epidermal wax layers. When they are 'babied' they tend to grow less spines and wax and to allot more resources to growth than defensive mechanisms. When i first got my bridgesii they had been previously grown in pretty mild conditions, with plenty of water. I don't think i saw any aeroles with more than 4 spines, now after sparse waterings and full sun combined with excessive heat (usually 35'C to 45'C) they have started to grow more spines, which are alot thicker and harder than the previous ones plus they bluing color is becoming more prominent. A clear indication of the phenotypical adjustment to the environmental conditions.


  16. I think bit may be onto something, now that i look closer i do see some very mild peruvian/cuzco traits.. But that is all just personal interpretation isn't it really..

    BUT! I can say with 100% confidence that those cacti of tripsis are predominantly T. bridgesii. There is no f'n way at all those are KK242 or any peruvian/cuzco breed!

    Everything about them indicates T. bridgesii - bar those minor little variations.

    The problem here is simply the Trichocereus genus and the fact that the species that make it up are so easily cross bred - and can have the most wild of variations from seed that there is no true definitive species in the Trichocerus genus. All the species should all be broken down further into subspecies.

    Bit: What you describe as a T. bridgesii, could in fact just be some subspecies that branched from the original root specie some time ago. You really never know..

    I have T. bridgesii that look the perfect example of a bridgesii, bright blue, thin stems with 1-3 erratically angled spines per aerole - but down low with all the new pups they are producing up to 8 spines per aerole in a regular formation. Which you would say means it is not a bridgesii, well i'm afraid this is just the nature of genetics..

    Natural variation and natural hybridization means these species are almost impossible to accurately define. The only way this whole genus can be properly organized is an intensive and thorough gene mapping with geographical referencing.

    Until then... Meh?

×