93

Chapter ThreeThe reported occurrences of mescaline

“More than you need to know?”

Trichocereus peruvianus P.C.Hutchison 543Collected in the canyon of the Río Rímac, Huarochiri Prov., Peru. 1700m.

94

Sacred Cacti 3rd ed.

Lophophora williamsii echinata and Trichocereus bridgesii SSO2

95

The Distribution & Occurrence of Mescaline

Readers will quickly notice that the following section is lacking the entries for the Trichocereus species.

These now form another book: San Pedro & related Trichocereus species. ie Sacred Cacti Part B.

We hope that the splitting of this work into separate books does not cause our readers too much inconvenience. We suspect they will enjoy the benefits which the expansion permitted and think that these offset the disadvantages.

In the section which follows, most taxonomic synonyms were omitted as these are readily available in the sources cited and are primarily only of historical importance. (More detailed and ‘properly’ worded taxonomic descriptions of the plants can be found in the listed references.)

To better assist the reader in search of more information it was thought helpful to include synonyms that are in horticultural use or used in the references included.

Many times plants get renamed or transferred by one authority without being accepted by some or most others. In some cases, such as Stenocereus, it is not uncommon to find several different names for the same plant depending on which reference work one consults. While it is unlikely that they would be encountered and still referred to as a Cereus, as many cereoids were originally called, it is just as likely they will not be listed by MOST sources as a Stenocereus.

It is hoped that the reader will find the following chapter helpful; any feedback on how this could be made more useful is welcomed.

Proviso: It must be kept in mind that substantial differences in

the alkaloid content and in the relative ratios of alkaloids present have been noted by numerous researchers. (True also in many families.) These differences have been noted to sometimes appear seasonally, such as the higher presence of N-methylated (as compared to N-demethylated) alkaloids detected, by Lundstrom, during summer in greenhouse maintained peyote. In contrast; in the same population of plants, winter analysis found levels of N-demethylated compounds to be higher than N-methylated ones. [While he used cultivated plants, the mescaline content was comparable to most of what is collected from the wild.]

They can vary as well according to the age of plant (young plant versus adult plant) or even by age of part (such as new growth on a large adult compared to older growth). In cacti, the actual variables effecting such reports are, usually, unknown and unstudied.

Alkaloid content has been noticed to vary substantially in amount and/or actual even composition between varieties considered closely related by morphology, and concentrations sometimes vary widely even from one individual or locality to the next. In others even daily fluctuations have been noted; in Phalaris and Papaver, for example, alkaloid concentrations were found to be highest in the early morning. (Quantitative comparative isolations of Phalaris was reported by Appleseed.)

Very few workers seem to concern themselves with any of this and rigorous work on this subject has rarely been performed or published.

[Species suggested by published analysis to be variously

weak or potent have on occasion proved to be just the opposite!]

Often the only data included is whether the plant was cultivated or collected from the wild. In many early papers we literally have to rely on the word of the workers as to the identity of what they analyzed, as vouchers for reference’s sake were never prepared and there is no physical means for confirmation.

Fortunately, in recent decades, far more attention is being given to the importance of proper herbarium vouchers being prepared for any and all plant analysis. Even in these cases, not all workers note enough variables for their observations to be truly meaningful.

Size and approximate age, part of plant used and stage of growth, i.e. actively gowing versus fully developed (if sampling only branches of large specimens), and time of harvest (time of year and time of day) should all be considered to be critical data to include along with place of origin.

Ideally for a voucher some comments on the local ecology and a description of habitat would also be quite valuable. This could include the plants growing around it, or with it, the immediate local conditions of occurrence [moisture, degree of sun, etc...], its apparent niche in ecosystem, and a description of the land or terrain.

Even better would be additionally including a local soil test and/or sample, and analyzing as many parts and ages of material as possible, as well as repeated tests with the same specimens at different times of year.

If performing repeated samplings of the same individuals; stress can become a factor capable of influencing the results. I suggest initially using pooled smaller samples of adjacent individuals within a given population. There should be additional small samples taken from several individuals within the same population that is pooled in order to check uniformity.

Most plants can recover rapidly and well from light prunings. A minimum of two years time is suggested for such a series of samplings with a maximum of 6-8 trimmings. Differences in regrowth versus original growth should also be evaluated.

The factors controlling and regulating alkaloid production would be a fascinating and productive area for future academic research. If chemotaxonomy is to ever be considered a truly useful inclusion in the repertoire of taxonomic tools, we must be able to better define the parameters of alkaloid production.

Determining and taking steps to maximize alkaloid content would also be of benefit for those who view these plants as sacraments. Selection for known high alkaloid strains, or focusing on clones of specific exceptional individuals, for intensive large scale breeding and propagation efforts, would be a worthwhile avenue for everyone involved with sacramental use of these plants.

Chapter 3: The mescaline containing species

96

Sacred Cacti 3rd ed.

a thirsty Opuntia ficus-indica growing in Australia

97

The reported distribution of mescaline containing species within the family CaCtaCeae

Nonbold face specific names indicate acceptance as a species is still not widely recognized.

Family: CaCtaCeae

Subfamily: Cereoideae

Tribe Pereskieae- Pereskia corrugata Pereskia tampicanaTribe oPuntieae- Pereskiopsis scandens subtribe CylindroPuntia Opuntia acanthocarpa Opuntia echinocarpa Opuntia imbricata Opuntia spinosior subtribe oPuntia Opuntia basilaris Opuntia ficus-indicaTribe CaCteae- subtribe CaCtinae Pelecyphora aselliformis subtribe Cereinae Polaskia chende Pterocereus gaumeri Stenocereus beneckei Stenocereus eruca Stenocereus stellatus Stenocereus treleasei Stetsonia coryne Trichocereus bridgesii ***(all forms*) Trichocereus bridgesii monstrosus *** Trichocereus cuzcoensis *** [Often 0. See its entry.] Trichocereus fulvilanus Trichocereus huanucoensis * Trichocereus macrogonus *** Trichocereus pachanoi *** Trichocereus pachanoi monstrosus * Trichocereus pallarensis *** Trichocereus peruvianus *** Trichocereus peruvianus monstrosus * Trichocereus puquiensis *** Trichocereus puquiensis monstrosus * Trichocereus santaensis *** Trichocereus schoenii *** Trichocereus scopulicola *** Trichocereus sp. W.BAker 5452 ** Trichocereus cv. SS01, SS02, SS03 * Trichocereus cv. TJG *** Trichocereus sp. Torres & Torres: N. Chile * Trichocereus cv. “Unknown C” * Trichocereus sp. aff. huanucoensis * Trichocereus strigosus Trichocereus taquimbalensis * Trichocereus terscheckii *** Trichocereus thelegonoides Trichocereus uyupampensis *** (Erroneous ID) Trichocereus validus Trichocereus vollianus Trichocereus werdermannianus ***

subtribe eChinoCaCtinae Aztekium ritteri Gymnocalycium achirasense Gymnocalycium asterium Gymnocalycium baldianum Gymnocalycium calochlorum Gymnocalycium carminanthum Gymnocalycium comarapense Gymnocalycium denudatum Gymnocalycium gibbosum Gymnocalycium horridispinum Gymnocalycium leeanum Gymnocalycium mesopotamicum Gymnocalycium monvillei Gymnocalycium moserianum Gymnocalycium netrelianum Gymnocalycium nigriareolatum Gymnocalycium oenanthemum Gymnocalycium paraguayense Gymnocalycium quehlianum Gymnocalycium ragonesii Gymnocalycium riograndense Gymnocalycium stellatum Gymnocalycium striglianum Gymnocalycium triacanthum Gymnocalycium uebelmannianum Gymnocalycium valnicekianum Gymnocalycium vatteri Islaya minor Lophophora diffusa *** (but not usual case) Lophophora fricii *** [Does not appear to be typical.] Lophophora jourdaniana *** Lophophora koehresii Lophophora williamsii williamsii *** Lophophora williamsii echinata *** Turbinicarpus lophophoroides

Turbinicarpus pseudomacrochele var. krainzianus Turbinicarpus schmiedickianus var. flaviflorus Turbinicarpus schmiedickianus var. schwarzii

Please note that this system of organization is presently no longer accepted by most authorities but it is still commonly encountered in horticulture and among ethnobotanists.

However, the genus Trichocereus was resurrected by Albesiano & Kiesling in 2011 and all of the molecular work to-date indicates that they are on solid ground. See elsewhere in this work for more details.

Most of the species listed contain only trace amounts.Species marked * lack formally published analytical work but have

successful human bioassays reported.Species marked ** have unpublished analytical work confirming

mescaline’s presence as well as successful human bioassays reported.Species marked *** have both published analytical work & successful

human bioassays reported.

Chapter 3: The mescaline containing species

98

Sacred Cacti 3rd ed.

Acharagma aguirreana (Glass & r.Foster) Glass

DNA work by Wallace suggests that this is Lophophora’s closest relative

Reported to contain over 2% hordenine by West et al. 1974Formerly known as Gymnocactus aguirreanus Glass & r.Foster

A more recent view

Species that are missing from this list were variously discarded, merged or ignored in the revisions. Details can be found under their entries.

One thing that careful readers will notice about this arrangement is that some of the new combinations merge plants with quite different published chemistry. If a plant reported to contain mescaline was renamed as a synonym of one which did not it was omitted from this list.

We would suggest that these be looked at closer with an eye for possible subdivision into chemical races.

Comparisons of Anderson, Hunt & others will also rapidly reveal a lack of agreement on a number of points and the seemingly capricious acceptance of some and rejection of others with little if any comment. Hunt’s lack of meaningful references, including in some cases the actual describers, precludes any resolution in a number of instances.

Some of the combinations have actually caused us to wonder if Anderson and Hunt ever actually examined flowering specimens or in some cases ANY actual specimens.

In several cases, the mergers were published by people who seemingly lacked first-hand examination of the material. For instance the peculiar assertion that the slender, densely branching Trichocereus uyupampensis BAckeBerg and the stout, solitary columnar Trichocereus validus sensu BAckeBerg are synonymous.

When faced with this situation we would suggest to botanists that they should not be afraid to say “I don’t know” or at least search out bona fide materials before uttering such pronouncements in print.

What is perhaps most fascinating is the movement within the Opuntioidae towards a lumpy definition of the species accompanied by a splitter’s view of the genera.

Family: CaCtaCeae

Subfamily: Pereskioideae

Pereskia corrugata Pereskia tampicanaSubfamily: oPuntioideae

Cylindropuntia acanthocarpa Cylindropuntia echinocarpa Cylindropuntia imbricata Cylindropuntia spinosior Opuntia basilaris Opuntia ficus-indica Pereskiopsis scandensSubfamily CaCtoideae

Tribe BroWninGieae Stetsonia coryne Tribe CaCteae

Aztekium ritteri Lophophora diffusa Lophophora fricii Lophophora williamsii Turbinicarpus lophophoroides

Turbinicarpus pseudomacrochele subsp. krainzianus Turbinicarpus schmiedickianus subsp. flaviflorus Turbinicarpus schmiedickianus subsp. schwarzii Pelecyphora aselliformis

Subfamily CaCtoideae (continued) Tribe notoCaCteae

Eriosyce islayensis Tribe PaChyCereeae Polaskia chende Pachycereus gaumeri Stenocereus beneckei Stenocereus eruca Stenocereus stellatus Stenocereus treleasei Tribe triChoCereeae Gymnocalycium asterium Gymnocalycium baldianum Gymnocalycium calochlorum Gymnocalycium carminanthum Gymnocalycium denudatum Gymnocalycium gibbosum Gymnocalycium leeanum Gymnocalycium mesopotamicum Gymnocalycium monvillei Gymnocalycium monvillei subsp. achirasense Gymnocalycium monvillei subsp. horridispinum Gymnocalycium netrelianum Gymnocalycium oenanthemum Gymnocalycium paraguayense Gymnocalycium quehlianum Gymnocalycium ragonesii Gymnocalycium pflanzii var. riograndense Gymnocalycium stellatum Gymnocalycium striglianum Gymnocalycium triacanthum Gymnocalycium uebelmannianum Gymnocalycium valnicekianum Gymnocalycium vatteri Echinopsis lageniformis Echinopsis cuzcoensis Echinopsis fulvilana Echinopsis macrogona Echinopsis pachanoi Echinopsis peruviana Echinopsis peruviana subsp. puquiensis Echinopsis santaensis Echinopsis schoenii Echinopsis scopulicola Echinopsis strigosa Echinopsis tacaquirensis subsp. taquimbalensis Echinopsis terscheckii Echinopsis thelegona Echinopsis uyupampensis Echinopsis volliana

99

Chapter 3: The mescaline containing species

Lophophora williamsii williamsii in South Texas

100

Sacred Cacti 3rd ed.

Lophophora williamsii echinata sensu WeniGer in West Texas