El Presidente Hillbillios Posted December 27, 2009 Hey Teotz, Do you have any pics of the seedling you grew from the Steven Brack seeds? Hillbilly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted December 28, 2009 (edited) They are currently with an experienced cactus grower in asia, he says they have sprouted but has given little other information. No pics yet, but I'll ask him. Edited October 20, 2018 by Teotzlcoatl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M S Smith Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) What the fuck is your problem Teotz! Why in the world you say anyone on US soil possesses such plants? (not that I even believe you though!) Are you just fucking plain stupid! And as for your ludicrous "White Peyote" you apparently need to go back and read my thorough dissection and debunking of it. ~Michael~ Edited December 29, 2009 by M S Smith Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whisperz Posted December 30, 2009 I don't know if I'm more shocked at the existence of this thread and the confusion surrounding it, or from M S Smith losing his cool... Regards,... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted December 30, 2009 And as for your ludicrous "White Peyote" you apparently need to go back and read my thorough dissection and debunking of it. O buzz off Smith. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whiterasta Posted January 2, 2010 There has been a lot of scientific error in some of these reports.F/I the mummified buttons alleged to be 6%. Say you took a 2% button and let it dessicate and mummify for 6000 yrs. Mescaline being very stable in such conditions would remain the same level but the plant material will degrade and be lost thus increasing the concentration of mescaline. Has any one considered that "white peyote" may well be desicated specimens of an existing species? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whiterasta Posted January 2, 2010 I wanted to add very old and very tufted specimens of plain old Lw often are nearly white due to the green flesh dessicating and constricting the aereoles and giving a very white appearance by the density of the white tufts on the surface. Vague other descriptions such as "more rounded" are very hard to use without a reference by the author as to just how much "more rounded" ie; does it round 25% more than Lw or Ld 50% some reference as to the basis of the claim needs made. Just as the term 'white" has no reference to describe the meaning, is it as I suggest a form which desicates leaving a large number of heavily tufted areoles? A much more pale green/glaucous form? Or , does it in fact describe it's effect? In the absence of any real "facts" it becomes speculation only on a vague piece of history. I think the only thing which can prove this is for someone to find a "rounded, white", cold tolerant clumping cacti near the grand canyon which is determined potently active. It is especially more difficult as the native range of L sp. has been decimated and constricted no doubt destroying perhaps many other variations on the genus. At any rate it does make a nice story, kinda like the legend of El Dorado, and probably has as much crediblity. WR Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) Thank you for a very intelligent post which is opposed to my argument but doesn't insult me! Amazing! The way Steven Brack described it to me was that it had a powdery white layer, almost like dust on it. I believe this is to protect it from the sun... it's like the powdery blue stuff Trichocereus have on them... which I can't currently remember what it's called. At any rate it does make a nice story, kinda like the legend of El Dorado, and probably has as much crediblity. A wonderful way to put it! At least it's something to think about, no? Edited January 3, 2010 by Teotzlcoatl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M S Smith Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) Teotz, you continue to ignore the very valid and constructive analysis I had made previously in this thread without presenting any sort of counter argument. The only reference to "White Peyote" comes from this link, and in particular these lines... The Diné (Navajo) oral traditions and those of other Southwest tribes indicate that a cold tolerant, high altitude variety of peyote existed in the area of the Grand Canyon in ancient times[citation needed], called "white peyote" which was rumored to be of cosmic potency. A thorough reading of this single reference to "White Peyote" associates it with a high altitude region of the Grand Canyon, and not at all with Viesca, the region of Mexico from which L. fricii and L. decipiens come from, the latter of which you are associating with L. brackii, an invalid name that even Steven Brack scoffed at when I inquired of him. I don't have the slightest idea how you got to the point of supporting a plant from Viesca, be it L. decipiens or L. brackii, as being the "white peyote" of the Grand Canyon. Even if the oral legend of the Navajo has some basis in fact this needn't mean that it is a Lophophora species as there are other plants referred to as peyote besides Lophophora. Furthermore, the link mistakenly associates L. brackii with Vizarrón (mistakenly spelt as Vizarrónan), Querétaro, Mexico, the location not of L. decipiens (L. brackii), but rather of L. diffusa. The link also makes the suggestion that L. diffusa is more cold tolerant than L. williamsii which is not the case at all. The link then even goes so far as to say that L. decipiens grows in the "eastern range" when in fact it is in the western range of the genus. It should also be noted that the link is incorrect in suggesting that Lophophora have been found in "caves in Southern Texas and Arizona" as they had only been found in Texas, and Mexico, not Arizona. See this link for the reference. Also, the Texas find is of ground up and reformed "buttons" and not actually desiccated plants. These "buttons" were tested for mescaline no doubt to determine if they were composed of Lophophora williamsii and were found to contain 2% mescaline concentration. The actually dried plant material from Cuatro Ciénegas appears to not have been tested as it could be visually identified. The first link I provided above says that "these samples also contained up to 6% mescaline by weight," but there is nothing of this sort in the archeological article. How you have so far jumbled this extremely invalid and unsupported links material is beyond me. I can do nothing but think that you accept a single source as all the support you need to run wild with incoherent conjectures, something I should expect considering you are the source of the "True Blue T. peruvianus" fallacy. ~Michael~ Edited January 3, 2010 by M S Smith Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutant Posted January 5, 2010 (edited) Amazing!The way Steven Brack described it to me was that it had a powdery white layer, almost like dust on it. Amazing! One of my lophophoras has this dust like appearance to it... Could it be the one?? Nahh, lophos do this. but hey, Teotz I think I found a diffusa with whitish yellowish flower, if you're interested, and the guy has it labeled as williamsi. Edited January 5, 2010 by mutant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
enix150 Posted March 15, 2017 (edited) The book "Ariocarpus et cetera" has an interesting image of L.Diffua var.fricii sprawling on the rocks in habitat. An expensive book for a single image. Your fabled white peyote would be the peyote of the Yeti. Here is the image you requested. There were actually three pictures of L. diffusa var. fricii, and the book had some others that looked pretty interesting too: https://imgur.com/gallery/KWDe8 The images in the PDF might be better quality: https://www.scribd.com/document/341641371/Ariocarpus-Et-Cetera Edited March 15, 2017 by enix150 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
