Los Genteles

[Gunter]

The Los Genteles Seed came from an enthobotanist who lived with a quechua family who occupied land that has been occupied by their ancestors for as long as they can remember. They grow food the same way that quechua people have for thousands of years and yes they grow their cactus the way that the SS catalog describes, in conjunction with their farming, as their ancestors appear to have done for millennia. It isn't feral Icaro type seed, it is seed from plants grown in an age old tradition for shamanic use. It is not from wild plants near Matuncana, but does correspond to that type, however it is far more likely to vary less than the Icaro and KK collected material as that the stock is not feral or wild but is in fact from cultivated plants.

There is every indication that the plants they cultivate are descended from the same plants of their ancestors. I would suggest that any skeptics in this regard have the ball in their court so to speak, to find some manner of evidence to support refutation, otherwise my investigation into this topic has shown that the stock is a fascinating and genuine part of an ancient tradition that continues to this very day.

On a slightly related note there is a strong chance SS02, SS03 and SS04 came from the Andes as that the owners of the collection, from which they originate, did tour south America as cactus collectors. SS01 came from a yard in Northern California. The plants were named as the SS series largely because they did not fit into predefined species categories, not that those categories have any trace of validity or usefulness when it all comes down to it.

[mr toodly]

There is every indication that the plants they cultivate are descended from the same plants of their ancestors. I would suggest that any skeptics in this regard have the ball in their court so to speak, to find some manner of evidence to support refutation, otherwise my investigation into this topic has shown that the stock is a fascinating and genuine part of an ancient tradition that continues to this very day.

Seems like you're shifting the burden of proof.

But here are some other possibilities:

New plants were transported to Los Genteles local by people

"" by animals

"" by one of the elements

To make your case, you have to rule out those cases. But most of us will just sit and wonder why it is so important for you to make your case. This stuff is just so obsessive and non-productive.

[Pisgah]

Seems like you're shifting the burden of proof.

But here are some other possibilities:

New plants were transported to Los Genteles local by people

"" by animals

"" by one of the elements

To make your case, you have to rule out those cases. But most of us will just sit and wonder why it is so important for you to make your case. This stuff is just so obsessive and non-productive.

OR...

Arch is just swinging the racquet in this obscure game we all play. We are all obsessive if we are willing to play this game of racquetball, don't ya' think?

Interesting thoughts, as I have noticed the los gentiles seed does produce a more phenotypically uniform progeny than icaro seed.

[M S Smith]

The Los Genteles Seed came from an enthobotanist who lived with a quechua family who occupied land that has been occupied by their ancestors for as long as they can remember. They grow food the same way that quechua people have for thousands of years and yes they grow their cactus the way that the SS catalog describes, in conjunction with their farming, as their ancestors appear to have done for millennia. It isn't feral Icaro type seed, it is seed from plants grown in an age old tradition for shamanic use. It is not from wild plants near Matuncana, but does correspond to that type, however it is far more likely to vary less than the Icaro and KK collected material as that the stock is not feral or wild but is in fact from cultivated plants.

There is every indication that the plants they cultivate are descended from the same plants of their ancestors. I would suggest that any skeptics in this regard have the ball in their court so to speak, to find some manner of evidence to support refutation, otherwise my investigation into this topic has shown that the stock is a fascinating and genuine part of an ancient tradition that continues to this very day.

Pisgah, I am with r. Jackson on this one, particularly about the burden of proof and whose responsibility it is (more on that below), and am completely dumbfounded as to the importance of Archaea’s case beyond pointing out a plant that may be an intriguing cultivar of interesting chemistry and current ethnobotanical use. For those who are interested in ethnobotanical cacti the Los Gentiles is well enough worth having for its current known history regardless of the case attempting to be made that it is part of an “ancient tradition” among a particular community who has farmed in the same manner as their ancestors, as many other Quechua, do to this day.

I know that I can be obsessive at times about cacti, but I certainly hope I haven’t been found “non-productive.” If you think this is likely going to be non-productive then read no further. Otherwise I hope this is worth the time, and possibly the effort, it takes to read. So here we go…

Without evidence this ethnobotanist (who?) should only state that the people of the community claim to have “occupied land that has been occupied by their ancestors for as long as they can remember,” and not give the false appearances that the length of time they have lived there extends back to some prehistory lacking any given definition. This claim isn’t supportive of “millennia” nor an “ancient” or “age old tradition” classification. In fact the phrase “for as long as they can remember” limits the history in question to just the elders remembrance of their own elders. But I no doubt clearly understand that the phrase is actually meant to mean just the opposite of what it literally means, and therefore is used in the original comments as a means to infer that the ancestors lived on the particular tract of land beyond remembrance of when they in fact first moved there. But is all I get out of this is that no one really has any idea how long they lived there and though claiming that it is an extended period of time have nothing substantial on which to make those claims.

This is not the same as claiming that they could not have lived on and farmed this tract of land “for millennia” (technically this would be over 2,000 years) or have cultivated the cactus for thousands of years, but rather stating that if someone wants to make such a claim they need to at least present the evidence they have to support their contention, something a competent and professional modern ethnobotanist or archeologist would do. In this case there is no actual evidence (or at least it hasn’t been presented in the original post) that this particular Quechua people either lived on this land or, of particular importance in this discussion, grew this particular “Los Gentiles” population more than a small number of generations back.

A tradition may continue “to this very day,” and may be ancient, such as we know the use of hallucinogenic cactus in the Andes to be due to archeological evidence, but the claims being made here about the particular plant known as the Los Gentiles being cultivated by a particular Quechua community in an “ancient tradition” of their own lacks any presentation of solid archeological evidence. The ill-defined, though claimed to be ancient, length of time this particular community has cultivate either the specified land or this particular cacti has not been supported by any archeological evidence and therefore a definitive statement that the Los Gentiles has been used by this particular community from ancient time and in an ancient tradition is unsupported, and this regardless of whether it is actually true, and therefore is simply a proposition that continues to need evidentiary support, and is not a “fact” determined through the examination of physical evidence.

A refutation, a denial or negation, needn’t present an alternative theory; a refutation need only show that there are oversights within the original proposition; it is the duty of the claimant to defend their positions against those who pose legitimate questions to it, this just as someone writing a doctoral thesis better not ask the interviewers to provide an alternative theory or else their failure to do so automatically makes the claimants theories worthy of being accepted by the committee. The burden of proof has always been on those making a claim to defend against those who dispute it by the presentation of evidence that accounts for the disputants legitimate questions. I need not present the proof that this particular community hasn’t lived on this land and cultivated this certain cactus for millennia in an ancient tradition to argue that the original claim isn’t supported by the presentation of the claimant, and certainly because I can’t prove these people haven’t done so doesn’t mean it is true that they had.

I have no trouble with a hypothesis, and am proud of having made some myself so the ideas can be explored further, and refuted as necessary, but I am not one known to make declarative statements when there are such obvious concerns that challenge my hypothesis. I am certainly not one to say my hypotheses are correct due to the failure of those who challenge me to present alternatives, and I find it particularly troubling that an argument in support of something is being made without factual evidence and then when someone disputes it the claimant ask for it to be done with factual evidence they themselves have failed to use, or completely lack, to support their original contention.

The idea that the disputant must “find some manner of evidence to support refutation, otherwise [their own] investigation into this topic has shown that the stock is a fascinating and genuine part of an ancient tradition that continues to this very day” is repugnant especially since it maintains the truth of its own claims dependent upon the failures of those who read the comments to refute it with disproving evidence rather than with the actual evidence the claimant lacks to support their argument. I certainly have presented adequate concerns to support my refutation, but proving through an alternative presentation that the claimants’ evidence is lacking when there isn’t any isn’t necessary. The fact is ethnobotany and anthropology would be happy enough finding that a particular culture uses a certain plant and has made claims to having a lengthy history with it and not worry about proving that it has an “ancient history” if no such actual grounds of proof exists.

The facts as I see them are that a particular community claims to have lived in a certain place and grown a certain cactus through a certain means for an undefined amount of time according to certain traditions, but what has been presented so far does not provide adequate evidentiary proof that these specifics are part of an “ancient tradition.” Why are we not informed regarding just how ling “ancient” is, well because the evidence doesn’t exists to say it’s ancient or propose any number of generations old beyond that which presently uses the plant or their immediately ancestors. The idea that it is an “age old tradition” is nothing more than a suggestion, though feasibly true, which we are seemingly being compelled to accept as true if we cannot disprove it, even though the claim has no basis in actual findings.

~Michael~

Edited January 17, 2007 by M S Smith

[Pisgah]

I know that I can be obsessive at times about cacti, but I certainly hope I haven’t been found “non-productive.” If you think this is likely going to be non-productive then read no further. Otherwise I hope this is worth the time, and possibly the effort, it takes to read. So here we go…

I think racquetball is quite productive, cardiovascularly; and if I am to extend this somewhat arbitrary metaphor, then the act of ethnobotanical tete-a-tete is indeed intellectually worthy as an excercise. So I did read further...

As an amateur cactus grower with limited space in a cold environment, I am quick to find noteworthy differences in seed populations I'm growing. The "Los gentiles" really are more uniform as seedlings than the "icaro" seedlings. The scenario posited by Arch seemed an intellectually entertaining one, a scenario that perhaps would lead to a stabilized phenotype among seedlings if a stabilized cultivar had been maintained for quite some time. Notice I'm using words like "would," "if," and "posited." My poorly articulated point was just that the presence of ANY anecdotal scenarios is useful to me as I explore the process of growing these plants. I love proof just as much as the next guy, I just want a free flow of positing so long as said verbage is presented as anecdotal.

I don't mean to refute the need to present observable data in the pursuit of a workable theory, let alone an understanding of the history of ethnobotanical usage of a certain population of plants. I merely found something evocative of my growing experience in what Arch had to say.

[bit]

I'm with Archaea/Pigsah on this one, although I also agree with the logic in Michael's rather verbose refutal

If a tribe claims they have been in location A and cultivating crop B for X years, and have no ulterior motive for doing so, then in the absence of evidence to the contrary it becomes a generally accepted theory.

[M S Smith]

Trichocereus scopulicola is also a "stabilized phenotype," but I'm not sure that one could then argue that it too had been a "stabilized cultivar...maintained for quite some time." I would think that any particular species isolation is what stabilizes phenotypes, as seems to be the case with T. scopulicola, but just because it is stabilized doesn't mean it was due to human involvement.

I'm actually not pursuaded that human interference produces a "stabilized phenotype," in fact this appears to create more diverse plants by the introduction of outside plants from other regions that have the potential to introduce new genetic material. Maybe the Los Gentiles and those who grow it are different though, but I am certainly curious about where this plant grows and what other Trichocereus grow in the same area, either naturally or in cultivation. It really appears there is not much information being shared on the subject...but I suspect that is simply because there isn't much.

Pisgah, how mature are your Icaros and Los Gentile? How many of each are you growing so that you might get good representation of what the variability in developement might be?

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

If a tribe claims they have been in location A and cultivating crop B for X years, and have no ulterior motive for doing so, then in the absence of evidence to the contrary it becomes a generally accepted theory.

Would you apply this statement universally? Or only situationally?

Should everyone who relays mistaken facts with no ulterior motive be generally accepted as relaying assumed truths that need to be disproven rather than proven?

What of those things that can be neither proven or disproven such as apparently is the case with this "theory"?

Is it better to accept that which is apparently not provable, or is it best to say that before it should be accepted there should be some proof of it...even if there is no proof against it? I think the latter.

~Michael~

[bit]

Would you apply this statement universally? Or only situationally?

Should everyone who relays mistaken facts with no ulterior motive be generally accepted as relaying assumed truths that need to be disproven rather than proven?

What of those things that can be neither proven or disproven such as apparently is the case with this "theory"?

Is it better to accept that which is apparently not provable, or is it best to say that before it should be accepted there should be some proof of it...even if there is no proof against it? I think the latter.

~Michael~

Hrm.. I'm known to present arguments for the sake of it so please don't take what I have to say the wrong way, because I understand your point of view.

I would apply my statement situationally, based on the importance of the "theory". Clearly the importance of the fact varies from person to person. So a person with a vested interest will be more inclined to dispute such a "theory", whereas a person with a passing interest would be more likely to accept 'face value'.

So it's not black and white, and the amount of interest you have dictates whether you should or shouldn't seek to disprove a theory.

At this stage of my cacti hobby I'm interested enough that it serves as interesting background information, but nothing further. So long as I am not basing decisions on this, or passing it off to others as fact, I don't see the problem?

[Pisgah]

Trichocereus scopulicola is also a "stabilized phenotype," but I'm not sure that one could then argue that it too had been a "stabilized cultivar...maintained for quite some time." I would think that any particular species isolation is what stabilizes phenotypes, as seems to be the case with T. scopulicola, but just because it is stabilized doesn't mean it was due to human involvement.

True, and scop is a clear example of this cultivar/phenotype dichotomy. Most scops look alike (give or take) but they do not have a robust status among historically entheogenic cacti.

I'm actually not pursuaded that human interference produces a "stabilized phenotype," in fact this appears to create more diverse plants by the introduction of outside plants from other regions that have the potential to introduce new genetic material. Maybe the Los Gentiles and those who grow it are different though, but I am certainly curious about where this plant grows and what other Trichocereus grow in the same area, either naturally or in cultivation. It really appears there is not much information being shared on the subject...but I suspect that is simply because there isn't much.

True. And why are there no photos of these plants in location? The SS catalog pic has seemingly been hashed around as macrogonus in other venues.

Pisgah, how mature are your Icaros and Los Gentile? How many of each are you growing so that you might get good representation of what the variability in developement might be?

~Michael~

I am growing approx 20 Los gentiles, and approx 3 times that number of icaro. They are all very young, and I have seen the uniformity of los gentiles as a result of perekiopsis grafting the two seed stocks. That said, I obviously have a pool of material that is inferior for gleaning any type of trends worthy of serious consideration. Still, I like visualizing which plants to put in my small greenhouse, and where to put them in my bedding area.

I love racquetball.

[Gunter]

I don't think sides are in order, but perhaps the benefit of the doubt might be. Your either a doubter or a believer, either way names like macrogonus and peruvianus don't mean shit (to me) to say the least, at least not till the house of Pedro is in order taxonomically.

As far as productivity, perhaps believing people who have studied the subject and spent time in the field with the plants and people is foolish, I should much rather trust the doubts of a temperate collector familiar with only horticultural material.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Archaea

[M S Smith]

Bit said:

Hrm.. I'm known to present arguments for the sake of it so please don't take what I have to say the wrong way, because I understand your point of view.

I would apply my statement situationally, based on the importance of the "theory". Clearly the importance of the fact varies from person to person. So a person with a vested interest will be more inclined to dispute such a "theory", whereas a person with a passing interest would be more likely to accept 'face value'.

So it's not black and white, and the amount of interest you have dictates whether you should or shouldn't seek to disprove a theory.

At this stage of my cacti hobby I'm interested enough that it serves as interesting background information, but nothing further. So long as I am not basing decisions on this, or passing it off to others as fact, I don't see the problem?

Bit, I am “inclined to dispute such a ‘theory’” only because it is hardly even worthy of being called a theory yet. Maybe an “unsupported hypothesis” is a better name for it. I am inclined to support a real “theory” that has some clear sort of meaningful factual support and has made attempts to address the concerns of those who are interested in the subject, and less inclined to support a “hypothesis” that has failed to address either.

You can believe what you want about this or any other subject, the problem here is that Archaea isn’t stating that he is presenting something to be “believed,” he has rather stated that his “investigation into this topic has shown that” such and such is actually the case. When someone has done that they clearly deserve to be questioned, and this regardless of how “vested” the reader might be in the subject.

Pisgah said:

True, and scop is a clear example of this cultivar/phenotype dichotomy. Most scops look alike (give or take) but they do not have a robust status among historically entheogenic cacti.

Correct, T. scopulicola does not have a “robust status among historically entheogenic cacti” and therefore a “stabilized phenotype” among Los Gentiles is not an indicator of the plant being a human cultivar.

Archaea said:

I don't think sides are in order, but perhaps the benefit of the doubt might be. Your either a doubter or a believer, either way names like macrogonus and peruvianus don't mean shit (to me) to say the least, at least not till the house of Pedro is in order taxonomically.

As far as productivity, perhaps believing people who have studied the subject and spent time in the field with the plants and people is foolish, I should much rather trust the doubts of a temperate collector familiar with only horticultural material.

Sides are in fact in order when a claim is made without the presentation of supportive evidence and the validity of the claimant eventually comes to rest on the fact that a certain “ethnobotanist,” whose name and details of the study remain missing, “studied the subject and spent time in the field with the plants and people,” as though simply having done so is evidence enough of the truth of their claims, while those like myself who haven’t done so have no basis on which to present valid challenges to the claim. What I am keenly aware of though is that not one of my valid disputes has been addressed by Archaea, the one whose own “investigation” now appears to rests on nothing but the fact that someone heard some claims from the local folk and that person, whoever it is, is reputed to be ethnobotanist. This obvious makes me wonder if Archaea wants us to give the “benefit of the doubt” to the ethnobotanist or to his own “investigation.”

There has been nothing said so far in this thread presenting any sort of evidence that this particular plant has “an age old tradition for shamanic use.” How old is “age old” by the way? The use of such phrases as “as long as they can remember,” “thousands of years,” “appear to have done for millennia,” “age old tradition,” “descended from the same plants of their ancestors,” and “part of an ancient tradition,” all fail to qualify as consequential with regard to the claims of the Los Gentiles without some indication beyond an indigenous claim and a bunch of pseudo-scientific assuming as to what sort of representations of time these phrases mean.

If one was to say that the particular community currently using the Los Gentiles has done so for at least three or four generations then I would certainly be more inclined to being less rigorous in my request for evidentiary material as there would likely be means to find support for such a claim and the use of “at least” qualifies the statement and what is known and unknown rather than making a definitive claim. But claiming that it is part of an ancient tradition without any definition of what “ancient” means, and then lacking any sort of means to back this up with facts, draws fire that would be negligent to avoid. The fact that the “ethnobotanist” was there to listen to the “claims” of the indigenous populations says nothing about the validity of the claims, only that he or she heard them, and therefore an ethnobotanist should not pass on such information as though it were factual without attempting to validate. If they want to pass it off as the factual, rather than as the mythological history of the community and the plant used, they need to do much more.

What will science have become when it no longer is required to defend its claims? I for one am disturbed by the lack of science in this “theory” and would like to in fact hear more about which “side” is being taken by the readership, this just as much as I like to hear which side is taken regarding any theory that is presented, including my own. Science is not served by avoiding valid dispute and this regardless of the lack of experience in the field by the disputant. That the disputant only grows horticulatural material in a temperate environment has no bearing whatsoever on this subject, as if it did it would disqualify Archaea’s “investigation” as well. I am certainly not claiming his investigation invalid due to his lack of field experience, location, or collection, but rather because he has failed to provide the information necessary to support it. This while he now infers that my opposition is invalid due to my lack of field experience, location, and collection. And what has any of this to do with giving the “benefit of the doubt”? Particularly when I have presented more grounds for doubt than Archaea has given for belief. In the end I suppose you can “believe” what you want, but if you want to present yourself in a scientific manner then you better be able to engage in the debate science demands.

~Michael~

[kakti]

I'm with Archaea/Pigsah on this one, although I also agree with the logic in Michael's rather verbose refutal

If a tribe claims they have been in location A and cultivating crop B for X years, and have no ulterior motive for doing so, then in the absence of evidence to the contrary it becomes a generally accepted theory.

How exactly did this cactus come into the marketplace? Did the tribesmen sell cuttings or seeds? Are they benefiting in any way from Westerners coming to their village? If they are benefiting either financially or through supplies/medicine from Westerners visiting their village, it sure sounds like they'd have an ulterior motive in telling the visitors that their cactus are thousands of years old. Even if they are not getting any sort of benefit, it still would make a great story (even if they themselves are pretty sure it's true) to tell the visitors about your ancient cactus

[Gunter]

Sides are in fact in order when a claim is made without the presentation of supportive evidence and the validity of the claimant eventually comes to rest on the fact that a certain “ethnobotanist,” whose name and details of the study remain missing, “studied the subject and spent time in the field with the plants and people,” as though simply having done so is evidence enough of the truth of their claims, while those like myself who haven’t done so have no basis on which to present valid challenges to the claim.

If you would like further details, you can either ask or find out yourself. Countless times I have found you unwilling to investigate further on some details of our disputes along ethnobotanical data. This includes topics relating to anthropology, archaeology and botany, among others. I am not sure what you think an ethnobotanist is, or what the study is, but I assure you the term is used properly.

What I am keenly aware of though is that not one of my valid disputes has been addressed by Archaea, the one whose own “investigation” now appears to rests on nothing but the fact that someone heard some claims from the local folk and that person, whoever it is, is reputed to be ethnobotanist. This obvious makes me wonder if Archaea wants us to give the “benefit of the doubt” to the ethnobotanist or to his own “investigation.”

On one hand whenever I challenged you to examine and address some aspect, you refused, the old thread on this topic being a fine example of how you dodge questions yourself. I am not dodging any of your disputes, rather I have not found them worth pondering, having previously considered them and found them valid but inconclusive and no basis for such adamant naysaying as you so frequently engage in. I plan on following up further and can contact the ethnobotanist, his experiences being very much worth learning about.

There has been nothing said so far in this thread presenting any sort of evidence that this particular plant has “an age old tradition for shamanic use.”

You are just refusing to aknowedge the evidence, first of all anecdote is a form, albeit weak, of evidence, indeed such evidence warrants a follow up investigation, not a bunch of overt and pointless doubt. Did you follow up? I have and am still doing it. One of the most important factors is that anecdotal evidence is lacking which contraindicates the claims, ergo the benefit of a doubt. Why not make it scientific? Consider the role of falsification, if you have your doubts then provide the support, the possibility of inaccuracy is not strong enough to base a scientific conclusion upon, however with the various forms of evidence that do relate to this topic, is is tenable to theorize that the claims are well founded, and though suspect in need of further invesitgation. Doubt is worthless and is the bane of science when applied without some factual basis.

Considering then that science is never conclusive, but always theoretical, the notion that concrete proof is required or obtainable is absurd.

When I have grown and studied these cacti for the better part of a decade, and in such study find much less of the self assurance in regard to claims, that you display, I find it ironic that here you are the naysayer, when of the two of us I seem so much more certain of my uncertainty.

How old is “age old” by the way? The use of such phrases as “as long as they can remember,” “thousands of years,” “appear to have done for millennia,” “age old tradition,” “descended from the same plants of their ancestors,” and “part of an ancient tradition,” all fail to qualify as consequential with regard to the claims of the Los Gentiles without some indication beyond an indigenous claim and a bunch of pseudo-scientific assuming as to what sort of representations of time these phrases mean.

Is that rpoductive? Lots of naysaying but no alternative hypothesis or suggestions of how we might investigate your concerns. This is how I know you don't care about the topic, you want to bitch aboiut details being lacking but make no suggestion of how we might investigate them, let alone undertake an investigation of those details on your own. In light of how counterproductive this topic seems to be making you mike I am thinking I should stop and just leave you in the dark about further details. No use providing data to those who cry bullshit at every turn and won't even offer a solution.

You strike me as ignorant of the role of the ethonbotanist in cultural settings, which I assure you is not as a naysaying skeptic, but as a friend. The seeds were not produced for purchase and the peoples have no stake in the import of seed and plant material, in short they have little to gain from the claims and they support themselves they same way that archaology has evidence the Quechua have in the same are for millenia meaning "thousands" of years,

What will science have become when it no longer is required to defend its claims?

A lot like the posts of armchair experts who having never been in the filed insist that they know better than those who have. Or rather like naysayers not only unwilling to suspend disbeleif for the purpose of scientific invesitgation, but that are unwilling to provide any support for their counter claims, ergo falsification.

 

I for one am disturbed by the lack of science in this “theory”

It is times like these that I wish yuo had participated in nook posts on scientific philosophy.

this subject[/i], as if it did it would disqualify Archaea’s “investigation” as well.

Yes it would!!! I am glad you got that, that is pretty much the crux of the matter for me, the absurdity of it all.

I am certainly not claiming his investigation invalid due to his lack of field experience, location, or collection, but rather because he has failed to provide the information necessary to support it.

BEing unfamialir with any of the data, then I wonder how you can claim he has failed, rather you might like to know that publication on the topic is planned. I can send you information on that as it becomes available.

In the end I suppose you can “believe” what you want, but if you want to present yourself in a scientific manner then you better be able to engage in the debate science demands.

Right man, right.

[Gunter]

How exactly did this cactus come into the marketplace?

Seeds are for sale at the moment in the States.

Did the tribesmen sell cuttings or seeds?

Cuttings in Peruvian markets.

Are they benefiting in any way from Westerners coming to their village?

Not from cactus.

If they are benefiting either financially or through supplies/medicine from Westerners visiting their village, it sure sounds like they'd have an ulterior motive in telling the visitors that their cactus are thousands of years old.

And their language? Their crops? their agricultural system? Their pottery? Their textiles? Their land? Why not see mike apply the same skeptical critique of every one of these aspects said to be thousands of years old too? Maybe they made up their language a few generations back to impress people in New England?

 

Even if they are not getting any sort of benefit, it still would make a great story (even if they themselves are pretty sure it's true) to tell the visitors about your ancient cactus

When imagination and investigation are the keys to sceintific knowledge, seeing naysaying and doubt labled as scientific is heartbreaking. I am reminded of the experts who knew genes could not jump, and that heavier than air machines could not fly, they had plenty of reason in their arguments, but not a shred of falsification. So called experts will allways, it seems, pretend that their ability to cast doubt somehow contributes to the scientific process, this is simply not true. An honest investigation, in the benefit of the doubt, is more likely to yield enough data for some form of conclusion, than any naysaying is, if anything casting doubt without some form of falisifcation is the antithesis of the scientific process, ergo folks like Dawkins do more to hurt science than they do to contribute.

[apothecary]

Sorry Archaea, I want what you're saying to be true as anyone, but I would say in this thread the ball is still firmly in your court.

You didn't actually specify any new information like, who was the ethnobotanist, is he reliable.

If there is every indication of cultivation, then you should be able to give some fair examples?

Mikes point about isolation is completely valid I think in that you could get a uniform crop of Los Genteles either way (cultivation or isolation) eventually.

So yeah, where are your references?

[kakti]

..."my investigation into this topic has shown that the stock is a fascinating and genuine part of an ancient tradition that continues to this very day."

Can you please provide more information as to what your investigation consisted of, who provided the information, etc. I wouldn't be surprised in the least that this "Los Genteles" tribe has indeed cultivated this cactus for many many generations, however at the moment the proof is a little lacking, at least from what you've publicly provided.

Also, since I don't know much about this clone or the tribe myself, can you provide any information you have on the tribe, such as their location, etc.

[Gunter]

Not a tribe I suppose, more of a culture, the Quechua culture is well represented for millenia in the Andes in pottery and textiles and was one of the four cultures of the Inca.

The cacti in question were reportted by the gentleman I mentioned ealier to have been found growing in a traditional and very ancient setting on rock walls adjacent to old gardens. They were tended to and harvested, not for export but for several local markets for local use. Interestingly the people who tend the plants are secretive about it and do not trust outsiders. One might do well to remember that the practice of using these cacti has been illegal in peru for most of the last 500 years, the little direct evidence in regard to the continuation of such practices in the Andes is due to the secretive nature of the practice. In a place where somthing which can be punnished (with death in the past) is practiced one tends not to find much evidence of an extant practice. While some might say a lack of such evidence is evidence against such a practice it might be wise to consider that a lack of evidence is not evidence against something.

The plants reported all looked the same, despite having enough diversity to make for fertile seeds. They were wide or fat very glaucous peruvanoids with dark spines. Seven ribbed stems are harvested for local markets in about 5 cities, the strain is reported in demand but is also reported to be cultivated in several locations. It seems that is corresponds to what many call T macrogonus and seems to be a cultivated form of T peruvianus.

When harvested the cuttings were loaded on a pack animal and covered to remain secretive. The harvest was overseen by an elderly woman of a family who reported that the cultivation and harvest practices were traditional.

The man who was able to stay with the family was able after some time to be shown the location of the plants and participate in the harvest for local markets.

I will have more information later but as I mentioned earlier the details are likely to be published at some time and more information will be available.

BTW the guy who reported this said that none of these cacti were observed in the area aside of the cultivated ones.

I should mention I was wrong to say proof, there is just evidence, as we all know there is no certainty in anything, not even science, just degrees of probability.

[M S Smith]

Archaea said:

Countless times I have found you unwilling to investigate further on some details of our disputes along ethnobotanical data

Maybe Archaea needs to present better arguments with a little more evidence that isn't so easily confuted by someone whose abilities he seem to under-appreciate and deride. If I'm as closed minded and lacking in insight as he appears to be proposing I am (and that is interpreting his feelings kindly) then you would think he would have a little more self assurance, while lacking his extreme defensiveness. I dare say he thinks that he is the only capable party to challenge me and that no one else counters me so out of fear rather than their own understanding that I am actually making some sense.

For some reason he seems to repeatedly overlook the fact that I am not arguing that there isn’t a lengthy tradition and use of Trichocereus in the Andes. I have rather argued that specifically regarding the so-called Los Gentiles he has not presented evidence or data that supports his comments that this particular plant, as he is the one making it out to be unique from others, has been used for “thousands” of years.

~Michael~

Edited March 15, 2007 by M S Smith

[Gunter]

Maybe Archaea needs to present better arguments with a little more evidence that isn't so easily confuted by someone whose abilities he seem to under-appreciate and deride.

I am, as always, in awe of your humility and willingness to consider...

If I'm as closed minded and lacking in insight as he appears to be proposing I am (and that is interpreting his feelings kindly) then you would think he would have a little more self assurance, while lacking his extreme defensiveness.

And then of course the same statement could not be made by me in regard to you...

I dare say he thinks that he is the only capable party to challenge me and that no one else counters me so out of fear rather than their own understanding that I am actually making some sense. Not a bad guess, but if you read my posts you will find my position, it is not without an awareness of your merits, however I should say that I am not alone in my beliefs which are contrary to your own, as far as many aspects of the plants are involved. However insofar as certainty is the mark of a fool I should admit that I know nothing conclusive but do find myself and others to be far more willing to entertain hypothesis for the purpose of falsification and clarification than you do seem to be. I do not feel that the rejections you formulate are worthy of the intellectual level you boast.

For some reason he seems to repeatedly overlook the fact that I am not arguing that there isn’t a lengthy tradition and use of Trichocereus in the Andes. I have rather argued that specifically regarding the so-called Los Gentiles he has not presented evidence or data that supports his comments that this particular plant, as he is the one making it out to be unique from others, has been used for “thousands” of years.

Should then I make note of the ignorant aspects of your own considerations? What then, is your evidence against? Nothing? Just your own speculation?

As far as the cactus goes, the widespread occurance and use of the variety and its locations and use do a great deal to support the idea that the cultivar is a continuation of an ancient traditon. All of your so called refutation can be applied to the languages of the area, does this mean that extant language of the area which is said to be thousands of years old is not authentic, because there is no thousand year old dictionary of it?

Why not look at your own arguments? What evidence do they consider?

Again, in my own explorations of the topic, (have you made any? I'd like to hear what you have learned) the cultivar is widespread and well known from several cities, not under the specific name Los Gentiles but rather as a phenotype. Of interest is that it occurs in cities founded millenia ago (more on this at a later point) and its use is surrounded by the same type of secrecy that would have been erected around the practice about five hundred years ago. There is enough evidence to suggest to myself and several others that the authenticity of this cultivar is not in question, as far being one of the forms used in antiquity.

However let me say I am not out to convince you Mike, I know better. I'd like you to keep your opinions, they provide interesting contrast and I don't think that enough people are doing the type of consideration and work that both of us seem to often enjoy. I'd like for you to expound upon your notion that the cacti are somehow distinct enough warrant different evidences for use from one selection to the next, a notion I consider absurd at present. Take for example the idea that use in Bolivia requires different evidence than use in Peru, when at times they were both part of the same culture and nation. Would it not stand to reason that if that single culture could be found to use the plants, then the present day borders are obsolete to the question of authentic use? To me this makes sense, however some, including yourself, seem to mandate that even if Bolivia and Peru were home to a single culture which used the plants, since they are now different in regard to political borders than we must seek additional and seperate evidence.

This goes right to the taxonomic problems but I lack time to address them at whim.

Anyway I do see myself as being petty on this, but no more so than you Mike.

Opposition is true friendship.

[M S Smith]

What then, is your evidence against?

One can say all they want that they "believe" that there is an "ancient tradition" "thousands" of years old surrounding the use of the Los Gentiles phenotype, but without evidence to prove such a claim there should be more acceptance of the concerns of a "naysayer" who simply wants the presentation of evidence when such claims are made as though it is accepted fact.

The fact is there doesn't even appear to be any verifiable evidence supporting the suggestion that the Los Gentiles has even been a stable phenotype for "thousands" of years, much less even 500 years, or even 200, and this regardless of whether or not it has been a stable phenotype for any of these periods of time. And this isn't even touching on man-made or natural isolation producing stable phenotypes.

That I would be asked to present evidence against the claim that the Los Gentiles has been used for thousands of years in an ancient tradition is like me asking someone to disprove a statement saying that 100 years ago some event caused the discontinuance of the local cultures old plant stocks and they had to import new ones which are now in use, and this even though they continue the same old traditions around the new plant. Neither claims are falsifiable. Therefore the claim that the Los Gentile phenotype is the same as it has been for thousands of years is no less valid than the hypothetical. But I am not making this hypothetical claim, but Archaea is making the opposing hypothetical claim that can not be disproven. That something cannot be disproven doesn't lend it a shread of credibility if it can't prove itself.

I am not making any claims regarding the Los Gentiles, only asking those who have to back them up with substance, just as much as they would ask me to back up such a hypothetical should I have made it. That the culture has used Trichocereus cactus for some time is not at issue, as that we know, the question is really regarding what sort of evidence exists that supports the claim that a particular phenotype has been in constant use for "thousands" of years. And again, there hasn't been any evidence that supports such a claim.

As for all that has been said about the current use of the Los Gentile phenotype today, well I haven't questioned it at all, but am I clearly not required to make a case regarding a phenotpes history when I am questioning the alledged phenotype history presented by another.

~Michael~

Edited March 16, 2007 by M S Smith

[Gunter]

One can say all they want that they "believe" that there is an "ancient tradition" "thousands" of years old surrounding the use of the Los Gentiles phenotype, but without evidence to prove such a claim there should be more acceptance of the concerns of a "naysayer" who simply wants the presentation of evidence when such claims are made as though it is accepted fact. I think you ask for something foolish, proof where there is none, evidence is not proof nor can it serve as such, rather evidence is only an indication, such is the nature of things as you know.

The fact is there doesn't even appear to be any verifiable evidence supporting the suggestion that the Los Gentiles has even been a stable phenotype for "thousands" of years, much less even 500 years, or even 200, and this regardless of whether or not it has been a stable phenotype for any of these periods of time. And this isn't even touching on man-made or natural isolation producing stable phenotypes.

Interesting approach, however I'd say that pottery evidence and oral tradition maintain that a phenotype not unlike this strain was used. I'd like to call to your attention however the realties of genetics and the idea for your unstable phenotype notion to be legitimate one must show some evidence in support of it. What evidence do you have that shows genetic drift in cultivated populations of these plants over time? Likewise what evidence do you have of the same in feral populations? Again why not use your arguments against the languages of the region? Perhaps the language of the region is not the same as it was a thousand years ago, new words may exist etc, should we then call into question the authenticity of the language and say that Quechua is not what was spoken millenia ago but rather is what has become of that ancient language? The problems in all of your arguments here have come from using them in other situations, like language. If your argument cannot show the same rigor when applied in different context, then it matters little to me if you think it is a good one.

That I would be asked to present evidence against the claim that the Los Gentiles has been used for thousands of years in an ancient tradition is like me asking someone to disprove a statement saying that 100 years ago some event caused the discontinuance of the local cultures old plant stocks and they had to import new ones which are now in use, and this even though they continue the same old traditions around the new plant. Neither claims are falsifiable.

You might then be regarded in an interesting way, asking for prof that you cannot provide yourself. Is there not a word for that?

Therefore the claim that the Los Gentile phenotype is the same as it has been for thousands of years is no less valid than the hypothetical. on the contrary it is evidenced by many aspects of the cactus and culture involved, however I leave this realization to those who have done the research, you at this point cannot be one of them, but mayhaps one day will come when you come to think of this as a strong probability.

But I am not making this hypothetical claim, but Archaea is making the opposing hypothetical claim that can not be disproven. One could easily contraindicate it with the right evidence that accounts for the facts. We know a great deal about the cacti that were used, we have representations of them in pottery and textiles (many in private collection and few in US works) we know about the traditions from what has been passed down. There is the process of elimination to be accounted for, what extant phenotypes do you think correspond to types used? I'd look to the markets for a strong guess and having looked at works of those who have done that I know of four phenotypes that appear in the markets for native use, the phenotype that the Los gentiles represents is one of them.

That something cannot be disproven doesn't lend it a shread of credibility if it can't prove itself. I could not agree more.

I am not making any claims regarding the Los Gentiles, only asking those who have to back them up with substance, just as much as they would ask me to back up such a hypothetical should I have made it. That the culture has used Trichocereus cactus for some time is not at issue, as that we know, the question is really regarding what sort of evidence exists that supports the claim that a particular phenotype has been in constant use for "thousands" of years. And again, there hasn't been any evidence that supports such a claim. I'd say there are indications to the contrary, and I would not be shocked to hear other peers of your say so either.

As for all that has been said about the current use of the Los Gentile phenotype today, well I haven't questioned it at all, but am I clearly not required to make a case regarding a phenotpes history when I am questioning the alledged phenotype history presented by another.

Part of my point is that Mike, you are quick to dish out doubts but slow to have any support for them. You do not just ask for more evidence, you naysay and act as if you are an expert about aspects of the cacti that nobody I am aware of is an expert in, such as identification. You claim to know more about things than those in the field who have first hand experience with more than collection, I am willing to learn from them and you should be too. Perhaps they are wrong, but one cannot arrive at knowledge with a foundation of doubt, science is a process of supporting hypothesis and falsification, not a process of doubting but one of exploration. I emplore you to explore more and doubt less, that is not to say that you must believe the opinions of others, but that is to say that the only way to learn from them is to entertain them as true and explore the results, one will learn far more about a claim being true or untrue through this than one would ever learn through sitting back in ones chair at a keyboard and calling bullshit.

BTW I see you as another person, no better or worse than any of us and no less prone to petty or ignorant actions than any of us, myself included. I think most people that see this type of thing, if you or I or others just don't waste their time calling us on it, it is not a matter of everybody agrees so says nothing. More like many of them know better than to say anything.

Also I don't care what your name is. I think you would argue better if your ego was not attached.

I'd rather be an honest asshole than kiss your ass, who cares if we are or aren't friends or do or don't trade cacti. I'd rather tell you what I think, wrong or right and have honest feedback, even argument, than be insincere and patronizing, after all you must get sick of that.

I have some nice cuttings I'd love to send you BTW, they correspond to the phenotype mentioned above but are not from the Los Genteles collection, but I dare say you don't have the balls to have a civil trade with me because you get butthurt about me being willing to be honest: you would rather not ever talk or trade because I disagree with you.

[M S Smith]

Again, an unwillingness or inability to defend the claims that he originally made as though factual statements. Now there is nothing but "indication" of fact. Well then let's see the indicators that would make one think a particular phenotype has been used in an "ancient tradition" "thousands" of years old. If this had been done in the beginning without so strong of a defensive reaction regarding the original claim as being the case beyond any sort of question (which I happily supply) we could have avoided all this mess.

Now I'll kick back and wait to see if someone, anyone, Archaea or otherwise, feels up to actually providing information (just indicators this time since there seems to be a backing away from the original claims as fact), besides the simple claim of locals, that "indicates" that the Los Gentiles is an ancient phenotype used in ancients traditions for thousands of years. You would think that since any sort of factual evidence doesn't appear to exist skepticism wouldn't be such a bad thing when such claims are made. But personally such claims never should have been made without some serious qualifiers. Let's see each "indicator" layed out clearly...and I'll even accept undergrad level work...nay, even a simple high school outline minus the essay.

Something even like this would work:

Indicator #1

Indicator #2

Indicator #3

etc.

When someone says comments like these...

"I dare say you don't have the balls to have a civil trade with me because you get butthurt about me being willing to be honest: you would rather not ever talk or trade because I disagree with you"

...one learns to avoid personal contact.

~Michael~

[BlackDragon]

I find this topic facinating... I agree agrument/discussion is far better than nothing said...

I have a few questions for MS:

MS, when was the last time you went to Peru of Bolivia? Or South America for that matter? Im just interested in how you base your formulated position/opposition? Have you seen samples at markets etc? Im just wondering how much time you have spent in the countries of origin? I know ive asked a few questions, dont mind me... it just helps me put things into perspective.

[M S Smith]

Hey BlackDragon, I've readily admitted my book-worm nature for years, so I can say that I have never been to South America (though it would be a dream if I went I probably wouldn't bore myself with cactus at this point in my life). But a trip to Peru or Bolivia, etc., really isn't necessary when all I asked for in this thread was some meaningful support for positive claims. Travel in South America isn't a requirement to provide legitimate questions regarding others' claims, nor does travel in South America automatically enable one to be either correct or thorough.

But hey man, you really should see my collection of literature on the subject! I don't have a bad collection of photographs either. And please don't fall into the trap some appear to; that I am some sort of professional or have ever claimed to me. I have never ever boasted that, and have always opened up everything I think or say to criticism and challenge. In the end the reader is the one who has to decide whose ideas they tend to agree with...and I have only been fortunate in that my ideas have been viewed positively and as a contribution. But that being the case it doesn't make me anything else than the nerd I am.

~Michael~