Some papers of potential interest

[trucha]

Its taking me longer than I'd prefer to get anything done right now but at least the CCI page saw some updates.

http://www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/library_index.html

[M S Smith]

Great stuff...but since you're here, what do you think of the Moon Cactus being Melocactus? Check out the thread and my comments at...

http://www.shaman-au...showtopic=13834

~Michael~

Edited September 7, 2012 by M S Smith

[trucha]

I don't have a lot of thoughts on that just yet. The claim of M. peruviana being employed by shamans has been kicking around for nearly half a century? It would be nice to hear of someone doing an actual study of the plant or learn of an information source other than Gorman. That was his best documented cactus work that I've seen so far.

Do you have access to Vivanco 2000 or the pertinent portion of it?

Edited September 7, 2012 by trucha

[AlbertKLloyd]

great resources! Thanks for posting!

http://www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/library/pdf/Albesiano_Terrazas_2012_Haseltonia_17_3-23.pdf

In regards to this paper, I have many issues with it, I cannot say much if anything good about it.

if you read it follow T bridgesii through it, look at figures 1,2 and 3 and locate it in them...

[Evil Genius]

Hi Trucha, thanks a lot for posting them. I am just browsing through them and so far, its been a very interesting read. I think its great that some non-german speaking people get some insight into the taxonomical background behind the systems of Backeberg and Ritter and the work some fieldtaxonomists did.

Guys, I consider these papers to be of scientifical value but please discuss anything that has to do with possible uses, chemical profiles and such in private. Thanks.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Evil Genius

[trucha]

Also finally online with a bit of work left to do:

http://www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/regrowth.html

[trucha]

More when I've obtained more papers.

[deleted by Trout]

Edited September 8, 2012 by trucha

[mutant]

thanks indeed! cheers

[prier]

go glad i logged on this morning. cheers trucha. this reminds me, i've been meaning to send you an e-mail.

speak soon.

[trucha]

Michael

On that Melocactus I'd lean towards thinking the story seems likely to turn out to have no substance.

There were some apects of that Gorman piece that were disturbing. Not just the implausible botanical aspects like several fruits per flower but there were also some comments that came from Gorman outside the article.

In that 1988 article Gorman described how a love potion was created out of datura nectar and a straw but in a blog on toe in 2007 Gorman alludes to this saying "I don't want to give up the recipe for fear someone will utilize it, "

In his 2007 comments, was mention that the "government shuttered that museum in 1987", his informant had moved to a remote area to practice and was thought to have died.

I'd love to hear of work on this topic by an academic botanical or ethnobotanical researcher.

Edited September 8, 2012 by trucha

[M S Smith]

Yeah, I sort of expected as much. Too bad people like Humbolt and Schultes didn't find the New World before the Spaniards.

~Michael~

Edited September 9, 2012 by M S Smith

[trucha]

Its really too bad that the New World was ever "discovered".

Edited September 9, 2012 by trucha

[mutant]

Awesome papers, trying to read them, they're not easy, but its really thrilling

the uniting of Echinopsis with Trichocereus is history

goodbuy echinopsis lageniformis

Albeziano & Terrazas 2012 - CLADISTIC ANALYSIS OF TRICHOCEREUS

Curiously, the European authors that favor uniting

Trichocereus and Lobivia with Echinopsis (e.g.,

Hunt et al. 2006), recognize Haageocereus and Weberbauerocereus—

exclusively from Peru—which exhibit

smaller morphological differences from Trichocereus

than does Trichocereus from Echinopsis or Lobivia.

However, Hunt et al. (2006: 90), who support joining

the genera, do not seem to be convinced of their

position, either: “Current botanical opinion favors

uniting several popularly recognized but closely interrelated

genera under Echinopsis, pending a better

understanding of the group as whole.” Thus, while

Hunt et al. appear to be suggesting that uniting

a collection of hitherto poorly understood genera

under Echinopsis s.l. is beneficial—based on the unaccountable

source cited as “Current botanical opinion”—

the nature of any such benefit is both nonobvious

and unexplained.

Edited September 9, 2012 by mutant

[trucha]

Or at least it soon WILL BE past history. In between the works by Nyfeller, Lendell and Albesiano the evidence is increasingly clear.

Edited September 10, 2012 by trucha