the mckenna caapi variety

[SnozzleBerry]

So, just to clarify, this thread isn't about actually clarifying anything species-related (as your OP appeared to suggest)...just confirming the source of a cultivar? Is there any utility to that info beyond name-dropping games (e.g. "I drink ayahuasca descended from vines touched by Mckenna himself!"). Sorry if that comes across as snarky, just trying to understand the intention here.

 

[dreamer042]

Couple of quibbles here. Technically the talk about purchasing vine and blantant images of the packaging showing the vendor's name is against the sourcing rule, but I'm not really too concerned about that personally.

The other is the consistent mention of Botanical Dimensions greenhouse. Where is this information about a greenhouse coming from? I thought the whole point of having BD located in Hawaii was so these plants could be propagated in ideal outdoor growing conditions in the rich volcanic soil and shining Hawaiian sun? I've never visited BD so I'm not sure about their layout, and I was just curious, why the persistent mentioning of BD's greenhouse? Perhaps you have some information about their spread that I do not?

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

So, just to clarify, this thread isn't about actually clarifying anything species-related (as your OP appeared to suggest)...just confirming the source of a cultivar? Is there any utility to that info beyond name-dropping games (e.g. "I drink ayahuasca descended from vines touched by Mckenna himself!"). Sorry if that comes across as snarky, just trying to understand the intention here.

The intention was understanding this sample, is it a cultivar? Did it have its origin in the late 1970s? and was it collected by McKenna and team? Is this an actual "red" vine, which is technically Banisteriopsis muricata as far as I know (Muskogee Herbman in post #4 cites taxonomical differences between his "red" and "cielo" vines, and confirms that his "red" was sold to him as Banisteriopsis muricata

My intention was to understand a sample which I believe had distinct properties, I feel these properties were more than psychosomatic. Just because taxonomic distinctions worthy of labeling a new variety have been noted does not mean that they do not exist, and while it has not developed unique features through generations of cultivation, as is the case with cultivars, I still feel it may be distinct...

Below is some schultes information regarding types of vines used in south American ayahuasca brews:

From an evaluation of field work from all sources, it is now clear that the two main sources of ayahuasca, caapi and yagé in the Amazon basin, natema in Ecuador, pinde along the Pacific coast of Colombia, are the barks of Banisteriopsis Caapi and B. inebrians, and that in certain parts of the westernmost Amazon the leaves of a third species, B. Rusbyana (i.e. Diplopterys cabrerana), may occasionally be added to fortify the drink.

Several writers – notably Spruce and the German anthropologist Koch-Groënberg – mention more than one “kind” of caapi in the Vaupes basin. It was my good fortune in 1948 to be able to witness the preparation of, and to take a narcotic drink along an affluent of the Rio Tikie in north-westernmost Brazil. Specimens taken from a flowering vine, from the bark of which a coldwater infusion was made without the admixture of any other plants, were found to represent an undescribed species of a malpighiaceous genus closely allied to Banisteriopsis – Tetrapteris methystica.

The beverage prepared from Tetrapteris methystica was a yellowish hue, quite unlike the coffee-brown colour characteristic of all preparations of Banisteriopsis Caapi which I have seen.

A small amount of stem material for chemical study that I gathered from the wild vine from which the type material came was lost in the overturning of my canoe. Consequently, nothing is known chemically of this kind of caapi. That it is highly intoxicating, with effects very like those induced by Banisteriopsis, I can vouch from self-experimentation.

An important point in this connexion is worth considering. Tetrapteris methystica may represent the second “kind” of caapi mentioned by Spruce and Koch-Groënberg, and it might be that the epithet caapi-pinima (” painted caapi “) alludes not to the painted leaves but to the unusual yellowish hue of the drink prepared from it.
-R.E. schultes

http://biopark.org/peru/schultes-ayahuasca.html

I will admit that I would like to have samples which were spawned from a clone collected by Terence McKenna and team, though this has nothing to do with "dropping his name", I truly value and appreciate the psychedelic history connected to these early samples, as a childhood fan of McKenna and his work I would personally enjoy having a vine derived from one of his samples.

...I also believe the McKenna red produces unique effects.

I have bottle of brew from a bag that looks just like the colorada pictured. Love a bit of it in my aya. But you need to know, what I have needs help.

Tested it. Each milliliter has 6 mills of THH, 0.1 mills of harmaline, and 0.6 mills of harmine. I am not sure if everyone is the same, but THH is a very poor MAOI for me. I like about 300 mills of harmine and 90 of harmaline and 100 of THH in my aya. No amount of THH will get me there.

While I'm aware that THH can be formed in brewing, is it not possible that these vines from this origin and source are producing higher levels of THH (or something else) produce unique effect.

I still think there is something to look into here (even though this thread is incredibly old and I had nearly completely forgotten about it)

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

Couple of quibbles here. Technically the talk about purchasing vine and blantant images of the packaging showing the vendor's name is against the sourcing rule, but I'm not really too concerned about that personally.

The other is the consistent mention of Botanical Dimensions greenhouse. Where is this information about a greenhouse coming from? I thought the whole point of having BD located in Hawaii was so these plants could be propagated in ideal outdoor growing conditions in the rich volcanic soil and shining Hawaiian sun? I've never visited BD so I'm not sure about their layout, and I was just curious, why the persistent mentioning of BD's greenhouse? Perhaps you have some information about their spread that I do not?

The initial pictures of the packaging were in response to individuals saying "banisteriopsis colorada" does not exist, so I said "while this may be the case, this is to what I am referring"

Though I understand, and I would have preferred not to mention the company as well, and have tried to keep everything within the norms of the nexus.

Botanical dimensions is a non-profit organization, their goal is preserving plant life and the lore and cultural impact of these plants, I'm not sure why mentioning this organization would be an issue, but the reason why it was mentioned it because the "McKenna red" was supposedly named as such because it was derived from a sample collected by McKenna and team and grown there, this is what I was told, but was never able to find a verifiable source on the claim, which was another part of what I was "trying to figure out" with this thread, is there any truth to this? Or is this a claim made for marketing?

I probably should not have mentioned quality, but I was trying to illustrate that I did not feel these were poor quality vines that had mckenna's name slapped on them to sell them, and I mentioned price because these were the same as the vines with other names, so it did not appear that McKenna's name was being used to inflate prices.

Like I said, I am just trying to sort all of this out, and since this is such an old thread and because it's been so long since I have even thought about the topic, I'm having to dig through old notes just to regain some memory of it and the study that was related to it...

-eg

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I'm familiar with the Schultes excerpt you posted...I was the person who shared it to numerous ID threads 4+ years ago. There's a decent chance the Tetrapterys species was mis-ID'd (especially given what the Nexus analysis found, or rather, didn't find) and unfortunately the expert on the family in question passed away a couple years back. I've talked with some ethnobotanists about the plants in question and the conclusion was that reaching out to his widow might be the best way forward, but I haven't had a chance to do so.

As to dreamer's questions regarding BD, his point was that you keep talking about BD's "greenhouse." At one point you even refer to the BD greenhouse as though it comprises a significant portion of the BD property. Where are you getting this info about a greenhouse on the BD property and which plants are supposedly grown there? Most, if not all, of the plants--especially the longstanding and established ones--on the property are grown outdoors, not in a greenhouse...that was part of the point of setting up in Hawaii.

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

I'm familiar with the Schultes excerpt you posted...I was the person who shared it to numerous ID threads 4+ years ago. There's a decent chance the Tetrapterys species was mis-ID'd (especially given what the Nexus analysis found, or rather, didn't find) and unfortunately the expert on the family in question passed away a couple years back. I've talked with some ethnobotanists about the plants in question and the conclusion was that reaching out to his widow might be the best way forward, but I haven't had a chance to do so.

As to dreamer's questions regarding BD, his point was that you keep talking about BD's "greenhouse." At one point you even refer to the BD greenhouse as though it comprises a significant portion of the BD property. Where are you getting this info about a greenhouse on the BD property and which plants are supposedly grown there? Most, if not all, of the plants--especially the longstanding and established ones--on the property are grown outdoors, not in a greenhouse...that was part of the point of setting up in Hawaii.

I never insinuated that the greenhouse consumed a large portion of the property, in fact I only used it as a short hand term for "the sectioned off designated area where BD cultivates their plants"

Here is every instance where I used the term "green house"

(The claim was this was a strain collected by mckenna sometime in the 1970s and grown at botanical dimensions greenhouse... ) -(2-3g

Is there really a "mckenna red"? Or is it simply a mislabeled "plowman #6041" sample that had been growing in the mckenna greenhouse?
-eg

Mckenna's actual Hawaiian home was on separate property from the BD green house.-eg

The "McKenna red" was never meant to be a variety, it was a name meant to distinguish a vine with a particular origin and source, it's supposed to be spawned from samples collected by Terrence McKenna and team and grown at his botanical dimensions green house.-eg

In every instance it was obviously a quick means referencing the property and it's "Forest-Garden"...there are actually propagation houses and green houses on the property, though this is beside the point, and while the term "greenhouse" is technically incorrect, the nomenclature for the land on which the plants are cultivated on is hardly relevant to the discussion.

Botanical Dimensions owns and stewards 8 acres of land on the Big Island of Hawaii. At 2200’ elevation, the land was originally native upland forest. In 1979, a small house was built on the neighboring 5 acres, which Kat owns, with an adjacent shade-house for plant propagation. In the early 1980s, a natural clearing was enlarged to make room for exotic fruit trees and the beginning of a botanical repository, based on collections of Amazonian plants that were brought to the Big Island for the purpose of protecting their genetic heritage, along with the ethnographic data that was collected about their traditional use and mythology.

Ethnobotanical Forest-Garden on Hawaii

Botanical Dimensions owns and stewards 8 acres of land on the Big Island of Hawaii. At 2200’ elevation, the land was originally native upland forest. In 1979, a small house was built on the neighboring 5 acres, which Kat owns, […]

botanicaldimensions.org

As for the schultes quote, yes, this is well known. As for Tetrapterys methystica, I dive into "painted-caapi" in this thread reviewing Caapi-piníma (Painted caapi) information and discussion on the topic - Open Discussion - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

Much of this has already been sorted out, this thread itself is quite old, and I have had to dive back pretty far just to refresh my memory on this topic. I'm curious as to what the interest in reviving this long inactive thread was?








-eg

 

[SnozzleBerry]

...this thread itself is quite old...I'm curious as to what the interest in reviving this long inactive thread was?

:lol: You literally posted that "fascinating" information had been added to this thread yesterday (2/28). This thread was revived because a member felt they had something to share, at which point other members chimed in and the thread was in the "actives" category.

Personally, I commented because after seeing the thread pop up in the active section, I read through it and there appeared to me to be numerous misconceptions in the OP and title (most significantly, the misapplication of the terms "species" and "variety") that deserved addressing.

Seeing as you recently chimed in on someone's thread essentially just to tell them they incorrectly spelled "naphtha" (albeit only two out of the three times they typed it out), it appears you appreciate the importance of accuracy...at least when pertaining to others

Apologies for the offtopic post, but perhaps that helps clarify why this thread is active again?

 

[dreamer042]

On my end I just found it odd that you felt the need to mention and emphasize the word "greenhouse" on the 4 separate occasions you quoted. Apparently it was just being used for lack of a better term, and that's fair nuff, it was just the repeated emphasis that made me curious.

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

...this thread itself is quite old...I'm curious as to what the interest in reviving this long inactive thread was?

:lol: You literally posted that "fascinating" information had been added to this thread yesterday (2/28). This thread was revived because a member felt they had something to share, at which point other members chimed in and the thread was in the "actives" category.

Personally, I commented because after seeing the thread pop up in the active section, I read through it and there appeared to me to be numerous misconceptions in the OP and title (most significantly, the misapplication of the terms "species" and "variety") that deserved addressing.

Seeing as you recently chimed in on someone's thread essentially just to tell them they incorrectly spelled "naphtha" (albeit only two out of the three times they typed it out), it appears you appreciate the importance of accuracy...at least when pertaining to others

Apologies for the offtopic post, but perhaps that helps clarify why this thread is active again?

Yeah, the higher THH levels in that individuals test were fascinating.

The only time I used the term species was in the initial post in reference to plowman 6041, which technically is not a species, but was only one single use of the word, and this was all clarified in later posts. In the title "McKenna variety" is used for lack of a better term, I did not want to use "mckenna strain" or the "McKenna sample"

It was made very clear from the beginning that "banisteriopsis colorada" was not official nomenclature, as was stated in post number 5. Actually from the very beginning this was made clear, in post number two Jamie made this very clear, and everybody else had agreed that this was accurate.

I did not "chime in" in another thread, it was a legitimate response, (though this is not appropriate to be discussed here), and I was not being rude, I was informing that spelling choices can effect the results of your searches when looking for information, and was the only individual in that thread that actually addressed the issue of the new formula after Zippo bought Ronson. Regardless, it has nothing do with caapi or this thread.

...none of this is productive, correcting errors is fine, but inventing things to argue about which either don't exist or were intentional misinterpretations of what was posted is ridiculous, besides, nobody wants to read a bunch of contentious arguing nonsense, it doesn't educate anybody regarding the issue at hand, and only wastes space and time. Try to keep your intentions behind posting within the realms of furthering others knowledge and contributing to this site in a positive way, I always do.

-eg