mamms-id

[nut]

got this from bunnings $12 spesh ,labeled a mamm senilis,which was interesting cause they dont often label them with scientific name,were they right,i know theres a little on these lost peyote on the corob ,anyone know much else bout em?[attachment=19575:sh4.jpg]

Edited January 20, 2011 by nut

[M S Smith]

Yep, Mammillaria (Mamillopsis) senilis. Here's what I wrote about it in my old Narcotic and Hallucinogenic Cacti peice. I don't think there were any revision in any latter versions.

All rights reserved please.

~Michael~

M. senilis was noted as a "sacred cactus" by E.W. Nelson after his visit to the Sierra Madres in the late 19th century (Rose, 1899). His recognition of its sacred status appears to be drawn from the respect shown the plant and its collection spot by an individual Tarahumara while it was being gathered for botanical documentation. On this occasion the native who was requested to collect the plant was very hesitant to do so, and having accidentally taken up two plants he carefully positioned the unintentionally pulled plant back into the soil. Nelson reports that the "Indians who have had little intercourse with the Mexicans can not be induced to touch one of them."

It seems likely M. senilis, not Epithelantha micromeris, is "híkuli rosapara," a plant once thought by Lumholtz to be a more mature form of the latter species. Lumholtz had wrote that híkuli rosapara was "white and spiny" and was different than the description applied to two other híkuli, E. micromeris (híkuli mulato) and A. fissuratus (híkuli sunami). Híkuli rosapara had also been described by Thord-Gray as being "almost white and somewhat spiny." Such descriptions do not fit the extremely short and weak spines of E. micromeris, but do accurately fit that of M. senilis. Of all the known species affiliated with the name peyote or híkuli, M. senilis is the only one fitting the rather general description of being "white and spiny."

It is believed by the Christian Tarahumara that híkuli rosapara must be touched only by those who have "clean hands" and who are well baptized. It is believed by these Christians that híkuli rosapara is itself a "good Christian…and keeps a sharp eye upon the people around him." Híkuli rosapara, when angered, either "drives the offender mad or throws him down precipices. It is therefore very effective in frightening off bad people, especially robbers and Apaches."

Of common interest are comments by both Lumholtz and Thord-Gray describing a type of híkuli called "ocoyome" or "hi-kuri oko-yo-ame" that, like híkuli rosapara, has "long white spines." Ocoyome is said to "come from the Devil" as a reward to wizards and witches and to be rarely used except for evil purposes. The Tarahumara believe ocoyome is used only by their enemy, the Apache Indians, and shun it, believing that to touch this "powerful medicine" could mean death.

It may be possible both híkuli rosapara and híkuli ocoyome are M. senilis as both have similarities in their physical description. Though there are some very slight differences in their symbolic attributes this should not automatically rule out their being the same plant. Such differences in attributes could possibly be due to a diverse understanding of the same plant by different groups of Tarahumara.

Mamillopsis senilis is synonymous with Mammillaria senilis and is commonly referred to as "Cabeza de viejo" (head of the old). Christian Rätsch is the only author who cites M. senilis as "híkuli dewéame" (peyote cristiano=Christian peyote), but there is no prior support for this title being associated with M. senilis. Bennett & Zingg are apparently the earliest authors to use the title, stating that híkuli dewéame is a "larger green variety" of híkuli that is "considered the most efficacious." Thord-Gray also makes identical mention of peyote cristiano, but with the alternate spelling of "hi-kuri rewe-ame." This híkuli may be a large collection of L. williamsii, possibly synonymous with "híkuri walula saeliame," the "híkuri of great authority," described by Lumholtz, but certainly it may also refer to an unknown plant. What clearly must be stated is that there is nothing in the writings of Rose, Lumholtz, Bennett & Zingg, Thord-Gray, or others, associating híkuli dewéame with M. senilis as Rätsch has done.

 

Edited January 20, 2011 by M S Smith