An article of possible interest

[trucha]

Soon to be online - the prepress version is up already.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T8D-50HYG6B-5&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F14%2F2010&_rdoc=10&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235084%239999%23999999999%2399999%23FLA%23display%23Articles)&_cdi=5084&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=93&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3798e6f458d654ecc67187aa0793ac97

[ref1ect1ons]

The mescaline concentrations reported here largely support the hypothesis that plants with the highest mescaline concentrations–particularly E. pachanoi from Peru − are most associated with documented shamanic use.

So in determining a positive correlation what did they hope to determine further, seriouly it cant be just about the shamans using the highest potency strain. It may also suggest that the plant may have become more potent in response to being harvested, either way this study cannot answer my question nor am I sure of what it actually means.

If someone would point out the significance to me I would sincerly appreciate it.

[trucha]

Ogunbedede looked at only what pachanoish trichocereus biomass he could access -- with history of traditional shamanic use (not including more modern shamanic traditions) and with no history of use. At least little or none outside of this community. The sample selections were limited to plants with known collection and origin data with the exception of Juuls which appears to be a fairly abundant form of pachanoi in some areas of Peru.

The paper says nothing about the potential ranges of alkaloids that any of the species are actually capable of -- that work is going to require a complex set of tasks in just the specimen acquisition process and a well designed study that remains to be done by someone (and/or their children?).

It also says nothing about what one particular shaman might prefer for some particular application -- based on what is already known that topic of study is complex and meriting field work that also remains to be done by someone.

It just tested a really simple hypothesis, that shamans seeking mescaline would prefer a better cactus if given a choice. Any conclusions reached in this paper are limited to the material that was available for study. The results should not be regarded as even remotely conclusive or definitive or exhaustive since he looked at only 14 samples spanning 7 or so 'species' and suggests there is room and need for a huge amount of work. Anyone observing the occasional qualitative/quantitative reports on this forum can attest to how much variation and potentials for variations exist in everyone's world. Variations are possible for a multitude of reasons.

The nice thing about this paper is that the primary purpose of Ogunbedede's work was to enable a directly comparative look between samples using the same analytical approach covering representatives of almost all of the bridgesii/pachanoi/peruvianus sorts that had previously had reports in the literature. And adding some more entries into the scientific literature that are likely to surprise few people. In that it confirmed a number of things and adds a lot of questions to my thoughts. There are some intriguing data points in this paper.

I'm more likely to respond to email questions than posts but anyone asking me something about this topic in an email would be welcome to post anything they thought was pertinent from that email here in this thread. Its not lack of desire to be communicative its just lack of adequate time for forums.

[M S Smith]

KT, I have PDFs of both Ogunbedede's original master thesis and the article with your contribution, both of which I need to print out to read more thoroughly, but what's lacking is clear photographs of the plants. I know Ogunbedede's thesis has photos, but the quality of the reproduction makes it impossible to, well, even tell there is a cactus in the photo. Is there any way that the photos in the thesis can be posted somewhere?

In general I appreciate the work, but I am a little disappointed in that the concern over growth factors effects on mescaline concentration is mentioned but then there are no attempts to control it. Which would seem to suggest that the results can only be used to generalize a species or variation of said species, but even whether or not this could be a correct generalization would need to be proven out under more controlled conditions (which I know you are fully aware of). But then again, this is not the object of the work, but rather that is to show that those species with what could generally be considered to have the highest mescaline concentrations are those which are selected for shamanic use...which makes me honestly just go...dah.

~Michael~

[trucha]

The primary focus of this paper was actually to be able to directly compare different cacti using a single analytical approach to address one of the many known problems (namely different workers using many different approaches in their analysis adding uncertainty to any direct comparisons of the results). Other known factors were not part of this study as they need their own separate studies.

To get published however a paper presenting chemical analysis of largely analyzed plants showing that an already known alkaloid exists is interestingly neither deemed sufficiently novel for botanical research aimed at a degree nor for publication.

This latter topic is an interesting one as it means those results are not considered interesting enough to publish on their own. Either for the lack of including anything botanical, pharmacological or ethnological (in the case of botanical, pharmacological or ethnological publications) or for the lack of isolation/identification of novel compounds (in the case of chemical and analytical publications). There is a surprising lot of politics involved in getting a paper published.

The final version will have its details and date of publication released within the next couple of days.

Images of the specimens are in fact already uploaded for sake of being online but that page won't become live until we've gotten the publisher's OK that the corrected proof we approved flies. The URL is in the JEP article but fyi will be http://www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/botany/Ogunbedede.html.

Some images are going to seem a bit off due to being shots of regrowth occurring on the actual test subjects while stored crowded inside of a poorly lit West Texas garage following the actual analytical work which was completed well over a year ago. The Juuls for instance is almost unrecognizable as a Juuls even though I know its history ever since obtaining it from ...otj many years ago. Its the exact same clone as appears in San Pedro (and in Sacred Cacti 2nd edition) as TJG (A) grafted using superglue - literally that very same tissue growing on its own roots - and is also from the same cutting as is shown in the images of TJG (A) photographed by Logan Boskey in that same work - ie the cutting that was used for making that superglued graft that was later removed and rerooted.

Similarly the scopulicola was both fairly young and seed grown (from Ritter seeds) so in response to its growth conditions and harvest has put out a surprising degree of spines on the regrowth. I know its lineage though and the ID is solid.

I've included images of the actual cuttings analyzed as well as adults they came from whenever possible. The vouchers will be in better growing conditions in an actual greenhouse at some point this year so more images will be taken of more typical growth as soon as new growth permits.

I think we included enough detail on the origin of the specimens in the paper but if not let me know and I can fill in any details.

All cactus used in this study were required to have known origin information. The pachanoi for instance was deliberately harvested as a drug plant intended for sale in the indigenous drug markets (witches markets). It was provided and shipped from Peru as two live cuttings by its harvester.

That important requirement (solid known origins) was actually a factor that limited the scope of what could be included in his study. While *much more* range of materials were available, including several other known drug cactus harvests from Peru, the research protocols restricted anything Ogunbedede looked at to plants that possessed good collection data and known origin information so anything lacking either or having unacceptable ambiguities in that data was rejected from inclusion. Harvests that did not adequately detail their harvest location for instance were automatically excluded even if coming directly from Peru. Knize's KK242 was probably the most ambiguous of the plants with known information but as Pardanani had previously analyzed KK242 from Abbey Garden that had been grown from Knize's KK242 seeds we felt a cutting obtained from Knize well over a decade ago and grown out into a large mother plant in the southeastern US could be accepted for inclusion as long as we included the source info for both.

Juuls was the lone instance to the contrary (in lacking good data) that was approved for inclusion. That was only due to it so nicely looking like some common southern Peruvian pachanoi populations that it was decided that the rule could be relaxed in that instance. I'm really glad it was.

A lot of other things could have been looked at but this was originally part of his dissertation for a degree in botany and so his research needed to remain narrowly focused on the topics that his advisors had approved.

A lot of tangential areas exist, all of which need their own study, but I know of no one doing that or planning it. Seasonal, diurnal, nutritional, environmental, and genetic based studies would all be great.

Now as to WHO is going to do that and how it all gets paid for, those are the great unknowns. Finding a person wanting to do the work will be easier than either finding funding OR getting it published. This particular work was amazingly shoe string in terms of a budget or funding through its entire history.

While I agree that "Well, duh." is the best comment concerning the proposal that their mescaline content is why these plants get chosen for what is undeniably a mescaline experience, (and therefore a direct relation exists), that notion is surprisingly controversial among traditional cactus users who often assert there is no connection between mescaline content and this alkaloid content underlying the choice of these plants for sacramental uses.

Many actually insist that there is absolutely no relationship between a sacred cactus containing mescaline and it being ingested as their sacrament of choice. This is almost a mantra being repeated by the NACNA and a couple of other large components of the NAC right now which is why its refreshing to have a single lone comment to the contrary appear within the literature.

While it seems like it would be simple common sense, common sense is often anything but common.

[mutant]

Looking forward to read the finished article.

thanks for sharing, top work

[Psiloman]

For anyone that is interested i attach the fulltext article.

thearticleinquestion.pdf

thearticleinquestion.pdf

thearticleinquestion.pdf

[trucha]

My primary hard drive decided to fatally melt down while I was traveling in Texas so this has been delayed.

The photopage at http://www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/botany/Ogunbedede.html. is back up and running.

[shruman]

Won't work for me

"Please check your URL and try again. Contact your information source if this error persists."

Bummer about the drive.

[trucha]

deleted by kt

Edited August 11, 2010 by trucha

[trucha]

Things happen. Thanks though. It could have been way worse if the bulk of the new images hadn't been steadily backed up on DVDs.

You'd think I would learn to spell;

Try http://www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/botany/Ogunbodede.html

This time its right.

Edited August 11, 2010 by trucha

[shruman]

I think the fullstop is stopping it.

I went through the directory & this one works: http://www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/botany/Ogunbedede.html

Thanks mate

Edited August 11, 2010 by shruman

[M S Smith]

What are the four others species shown at the following link? Are these all collected from the same place, maybe a market? If so, which region?

http://www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/botany/Ogunbodede/01.html

The two on the left throw me off a bit, though the one on the far left might be a mult-ribbed T. peruvianus of sorts. I think the second one from the left is a Haageocereus, in all likelihood H. acranthus. Then it looks like T. peruvianus, T. pachanoi, and then an Armatocereus (A. oligogonus, or A. laetus?).

And thanks for the photos. Bunches!

~Michael~

[trucha]

Most likely true.. Live material was organized several years ago but some has died, including what was probably acranthus, but the Armatocereus maybe matucanensis [sic?] is still alive.

The claim accompanying that image was that those five were identified as being regarded by shamans in Peru as San Pedros (whatever that means) but there were no details of practitioners, very little about locales or points of origin for the live materials were provided so they all had to be excluded from study except for one, a pachanoi that did come from a market bound harvest.