well .. karma? if thats teh case

I will add more to the myths section.

The whole Kate thing is just a wild claim, he ends up claiming all his stuff was ripped off from her after zhe died and he trademarked the nickname. It is a blatent lie, like i wrote, I know people who sold him plants that he sold to others. His plants have no collection data and are misidentified. His claims are all based in making money, not truth.

It is better to just keep addressing and adding to the myth post and leave this as a side issue. He is less reliable than KK!

the only thing that i find hard to understand about your position is that zircon6 does offer many other types of tricho's (glaucus, rimac, juuls giant, spachianus, and a few others) in addition to his T. Pachanoi's. So it seems to me that he does indeed sell/offer legit Peruvianus but that his T. Pachanoi may well be suspect. Not sure why this guy would go through the trouble of decieving people on his T. Pachanoi when he offers other legit Tricho's. know what im saying? im certainly not saying i trust the guy 100% on his pachanoi's though. Ill know soon though if my Cactus Kate cuttings are good or not and then we can put this sorta to rest heh.


AlbertKLloyd im curious, the links above referring to pachanoi/pachanot, am i understanding correctly that authentic T. Pachanoi does not have much spine-ation while the PC clone has short little spines?

See here:
Pachanot
Pachanoi

Lots of people do stuff like that. PC pachanoi is VERY cheap to buy in bulk. I don't know of any clones of peruvianus that are so widely available. It makes a lot of sense to me why his pachanoi would be PC and his others wouldn't. Because there is a clone of pachanoi available on the market that is super cheap that he can make tons of profit off of. As with the other clones he has (glaucus, rimac, juuls giant, spachianus, and a few others) Those aren't nearly as readily available.

Anyways, he basically says that anyone who eats their cacti are junkies so why would he care about a clone being potent?

ok that makes sense. and ya i agree with his sentiments being negative for mescaline eaters.

As with the spines on PC clones, they're pretty short, but some pachanoi clones have almost no spines and some have long ones. So it's not reliable to just go off of the spines when IDing. PC is pretty unmistakeable in my opinion, but the only way to tell for sure is when if flowers. There should be white hairs on the flower instead of the black/grey hairs. Which is found on no other pachanoi clones (that I know of)

Definitely let us know if his plants are active though. I had never heard before that his pachanoi is PC though. It could be that it is sometimes and sometimes it isn't. Who knows.

If you have watched him over the years he will slander a species or form, but collect it, grow it out and then tout it and sell it later. However he does not sell Juuls giant yet does he? And he renamed it and claims it is hybrid.

His glaucus are not T. glaucus. His peruvianus are often seed grown and unpredictable, keep in mind peruvianus varies and tends to be weak compared to authentic bridgesii and pachanoi.

He claims there is only one form of pachanoi, a lie. He claims there is only one form of bridgesii, also a lie. He ignores collection data and labeling and lies to suit himself. His prices are insanely high for low quality plants of dubious origination.

Dude thinks that if a peruvianoid is blue that makes it a glaucus!

PC hairs only go white in sun, otherwise they are brown.
I have even seen this on plants that were the same stock sold to zircon6 who resold them with lies.

he sells a Juuls Giant that he claims is from Tom Juuls yard.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/...&hash=item5d482bb636

I know he named one "Fastest" and is pretty up front that he just picked the name himself. What exactly are you looking for to prove if a trich is authentic T. Glaucus? His current glaucus looks exactly like a T. Glaucus imo. Ive never read anywhere that he claims there is only one form of Bridgesii.

Again im not trying to defend the guy really, but the way you attack this whole thing with such fervor is interesting. Keep the info coming though.

I guess i have hard time understanding where the hate for his other cacti comes from. I bought a Seed grown peruvian torch from him and he clearly states that it was grown from seed that was wild harvested in the andes mtns and that the seed batch had a ton of variability. I accepted that and purchased what appears to be a really nicely grown peruviant torch. Sure it might not be as active as a good T. Pachanoi or T. Bridgesii but that is always the case..

No hate, simply disdain for his false presentations, outright lies and willingness to rip people off.

I will share some direct quotes from his website:


That is under a caption showing a large plant. If he sells more than one type of T. peruvianus, or any from seed, then this statement is not true.


KK242 is not an identification number but a range for collection of several species.

from the page you linked to:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/...&hash=item5d482bb636
pertaining directly to Juuls Giant:

So it is from Juuls yard?
We would not even have the correct spelling of the name Juul associated with the cacti if not for the work of some specific individuals. All of the old literature has a different spelling!

However here he claims that the plant in question comes from Kate and not Juuls yard.



"Discovered, which means that Zircon6 identified it!

The idea that it is authentic Juuls Giant is highly questionable.



"as far as I know!"
Honestly, I doubt it is Juuls giant.
If you have ever seen Juuls Giant that was from Tom Juuls yard you would note it looks nothing like the Zircon6 offering that he claims to have "discovered" He is just trying to capitalize on the name.

http://www.trichocereus.com/may_2009_bbb.htm

This is not true, it actually closely resembles true T pachanoi found in Peru and is very close in form to several other pachanoi selections from Peru and with collection data from botanical gardens. Furthermore the idea that it is a hybrid is not supported by any evidence, Zircon6 just makes that claim because he is trying to pass off PC as authentic pachanoi when it isn't, so he passes off a selection resembling authentic pachanoi as hybrid!

He writes this:

Yet it is very much the classic sacred cactus of Peru, being very much like a common clone grown all around Lima. He claims to not sell them and says it is a mutt, but there is no evidence it is a mutt at all!



So Labels and collection data are things he ignores, he just gives the ID he feels comfortable with and states that names essentially do not matter, this reflects his dishonest attitude of presenting whatever he wants with whatever name he wants to make a buck.


This is a blatant lie, KK242 is a Knize range number that is used for over 9 different types of cacti, not T peruvianus, and among those 9 is T cuzcoensis, which is totally inactive. The strong KK242s are actually not T peruvianus at all, but are T pachanoi and are known as short spine KK242.

Trichocereus glaucus as he sells it is totally false and misidentified.
First you have to understand he totally rejects botanical descriptions, but the truth is that specific epithets like T glaucus correspond to botanical descriptions and type specimens.

This is part of the botanical description of real T glaucus:


Note that the width of the plant is 5-8cm!
real T glaucus is 2-3 inches wide max!
It also has 10-16 spines per areole. It does not look like T peruvianus.


Again, false information about KK242 and Knize collections.

His peruvianus (wild Andes) from seed are from IcarosDNA stock. You can buy seeds of this same material for very little and seedlings little too, you do not have to pay the ridiculous prices he wants, however that line of peruvianus is ok, not especially noteworthy, dried outer skin tends to yield 0.5-1% mescaline.

http://www.sacredcactus.com/peruvian_torch.htm



Contrast this with collections made by people who went to Bolivia and Peru or other regions in the Andes. He says he only knows of one bridgesii and then says the same thing about San Pedro, but anyone knowledgeable about the subject knows that San Pedro is a name used even for bridgesii in Bolivia! It is not even a single cactus species! However he means that San pedro is T pachanoi, this is not true, secondly he means that there is to his knowledge only one form of T pachanoi, again this is not true.

http://www.sacredcactus.com/comparisons.htm#hybrid
the above link has so much bad information it is not worth quoting it all.
Needless to say if you look up known hybrids where each parent is known they disprove his assertions, if you look up pure bred pachanoi likewise it disproves his assertions!
However this caption here is worth noting:


It depicts the plant he now sells as Juuls Giant that he "discovered" at Kates place, this plant does not look like Juuls Giant from Tom Juuls yard.

well... id say you convinced me to be super cautious of what i buy from this dude. The only thing im willing to buy from this guy at this point now are T. Bridgesii and his Peruvian Torchs.. BUT thats only if i cant find them somewhere else. if this guy really is what you claim then i really will avoid him like the plague. I emailed him with a super professional inquiry about the cactus cuttings i had bought and still no response from him. Im sure he doesnt care since he's got his money.

edit: i might add that your Juuls Giant assessment seems to be spot on. I noticed that his Juuls Giant looks nothing like my 12" juuls cutting. nothing like it.

Alberklloyd, I love this thread and agree that there is plenty of misinformation out there regarding San Pedro and the whole Trichocereus genus that needs to be clarified.

What you are doing is great, but I am having trouble with the bashing of this one particular seller (isn't there a section for that?).

His decietfulness about San Pedro and the PC Clone is unfortunate, but then pictures on his sight clearly show what he's selling. Perhaps it's time to stop bashing one seller and stick to the clarification of myths as this thread was intended for.

The internet is loaded with information. Some of it is true and some of it isn't. I appreciate your diligence in trying to bring forth the truth about my beloved cacti.

Point taken, the side developed as a response.
I will continue to address and add to the myth aspects and it does remain the primary focus of this thread.

Exactly my thoughts. It raised more questions for me than it answered

I have a "San Pedro" T.Pachanoi growing in a window on the south(indoors) that I
bought from a local smartshop over 7 years ago or so. It's nice and tall now,
but I'm wondering:


How to determine if it is a Mescaline rich variety of T.Pachanoi or a Mescaline-less/low
PC-clone?

Could you perhaps post a pictorial guide on how to tell the different varieties of T.Pachanoi sold as "San pedro" apart? That would be really helpfull.

Pics can help, but the bioassay may be the most effective method of finding out how rich it is. Check out this page
http://www.largelyaccura...dia.com/pedro/pedro.html

When I first saw this thread I thought of the actual myth of San Pedro or Saint Peter. For whatever reason this story makes me chuckle, but supposedly when the Spaniards came to South America they also brought Christianity. When the Christians began teaching the natives about heaven they told them that Saint Peter stood at the gates of heaven waiting to let you in. Upon hearing the definition of heaven the natives told them they had a plant that did the same thing. Thus effectively turning any of our well known Tricho's into San Pedro.

For those inclined to such tinkering, TLC would help perhaps. And Trout has/had a pictorial guide to the genus somewhere on the interwebz... such as this, found from googling 'trout trichocereus'.

EDIT: actually, the Trout links aren't working at the moment, sorry!

EDIT2: I originally intended to say that, only this morning I was thinking how nobody ever got very rich by being entirely honest...

The term San Pedro has another context.
In the Andes they use what is often called protective coloration in some anthropology circles. In this people use symbols of the intolerant culture to represent their own deities.

Saint Peter, aka San Pedro in this represents a specific deity.

Maybe i will write more about this, but at the moment it is a bit too much. He is however known by many names. It is related to how Mary in this symbolism is not the Mary of catholic religion.
The spanish occupation murdered anyone practicing native religion, so the natives employed catholic images to evade detection. Saint Peter became used for this purpose, this relates to the gate concept for he is the gate keeper, but not to catholic heaven.

This is a topic that is really heavy and intense in terms of exposition. It relates directly to sorcery practice that we apply the term shamanism to, but it is not all peace and love new age stuff about healing. It has a dark and a light side, it is better to not delve too much into that topic in this thread.

Just curious, how did you arrive at the conclusion of Myth #3? Personal extractions and comparisons? This is very exciting news if true, but I have always accepted at face value that most of the alkaloids one wants - if not all - are in the skin, and that by including the fleshy stuff in a tea or extraction that one risks having unwanted alkaloids that may or may not affect the experience, plus a whole lot more goo to consume if it is a tea that has been made.

Of course, all my sources are anecdotal... I would be thrilled if you conclusively debunked this myth as I have recently harvested 3 x 2ft,, 2-2.5inch diameter of homegrown cactus (a variety of types), but have not had the time to decoct them. And I have about 130 x 3-8 inch cacti that should be harvestable in the fall or next winter!

Cheers,

JBArk

There is no evidence that there are unwanted alkaloids in the tissues beneath the dark green layer. Inital extractions using only outer tissue were pursued because of the mucilage, it made extraction very difficult, also few people want to ingest something that can be very thick and snot like, when they can just process outer tissue and extract or ingest that.

Likewise the inner tissue has proven active, and is bitter, though less so than outer tissues.

RETI & CASTRILLON 1951 (TN3B page 270)

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=24995

Great - thanks! I think a reasonable workaround for the "snot problem" would be to make a tea for the outer skin and extract the mescaline from the inner flesh. I'll keep this in mind.

Cheers,

JBArk

I once knew a lakota who had ceremonies with more than one healer who lacto-fermented mashed peyote into a beverage. He said it ranged from a tasty beverage to vomitous slop, depending on the procedure used I've since wondered if a protocol for lacto-fermenting the mucilage out of white san pedro flesh would be feasible. Perhaps with intentional inoculation to prevent spoilage.