did not know that was in there

Did anyone asking questions/posting hearsay search anything before posting in this thread?

I took time years ago to shine some light on the list linked earlier in the thread. A cursory search should have revealed a thread entitled Overview of Ayahuasca Vine Nomenclature and Taxonomy.

It could benefit from a few updates, but here's the gist:

Yellow = accepted name
Red = synonym/misspelling
Orange = more information needed

1. Banisteriopsis caapi
2. B. ceduciflora >>> B. caduciflora
3. B. cornifolia >>> B. wurdackii
4. B. cristata
5. B. heterostyla
6. B. inebrians >>> B. caapi
7. B. laevifolia
8. B. leiocarpa
9. B. leptocarpa >>> B. martiniana >>> B. elegans or B. grandifolia
10. B. longialata
11. B. lucida >>> Diplopterys lucida
12. B. martiniana >>> B. elegans or B. grandifolia
13. B. muricata
14. B. nigrescens
15. B. nutans
16. B. oxyclada
17. B. padifolia
18. B. peruviana >>> Diplopterys peruviana
19. B. pubipetata >>> B. pubipetala >>> Diplopterys pubipetala
20. B. quitensis >>> B. caapi
21. B. rusbyana >>> Diplopterys cabrerana

So, that list of 21 names reduces to 13 accepted names.

Banisteriopsis caapi
B. caduciflora
B. cristata
B. heterostyla
B. laevifolia
B. leiocarpa
B. longialata
B. muricata
B. nigrescens
B. nutans
B. oxyclada
B. padifolia
B. wurdackii

Are there discrepancies between accepted botanical designations and indigenous designations? Most definitely. But I highly doubt anyone here (or interwebz hearsay) has the experience/qualifications to accurately revise botanical taxonomy in-line with various indigenous designations.

snozz, with respect the thread was started seeking info on different vines, theses threads pop up alot, but thats ok it helps disseminate info.

some good info was presented here, and gets us further than your colored list of words. i mean really what is that supposed to tell us about ayahuasca or the difference between vines? youve just named some ropes but its not furthering understanding.

heresay as you call it, or as i call it our thoughts and opinions is how we discuss things and come to a concensus about the info. its healthy discussion.

what edperiences and qualifications are necessary to talk about different types of vines. i thought it went without saying that we are not speaking with scientific authority. but i stand by the info here and think it goes further than whatever that list is supposed to tell us. were not trying to redefine the taxonamy, i think the simple goal is just to be able to know what the other person is talking about definatively. So dont just call it black aya, state were it originated and were you bought it. Then even if the scientific name is not the correct one, it doesnt matter because we will still at least know we are talking about for example the peruvian black from maya or the hawaiin mckenna red offered by several vendors.

I think we give to much power to mainstream science on this when it is the indigenous model we should be adopting.

i mean if i posted a picture of a vine here could your accepted list of 13 names tell me what it is? how did they arrive at thses names and how many samples did they really search through. i mean did they go to the shamans and say give me all of your psychoactive vines well anylize them? given the scientific attitude twords indigenous knowledge i highly doubt thats the case. so this is a western list and aya isnt a western plant. who knows more the indigenous working with the vine for thousands of years? or the scientists whom just within the last 50 years have started studying aya, and not even in most cases from an experiential standpoint. i mean they dont even drink it so what could they know?

This is my point.

You talk of "indigenous naming systems."

OK. Present one.

Present a coherent indigenous naming system, the group from which it originates, and the morphological/taxonomic components that fit the specific species being discussed.

I can do that for every plant on my list.

Can you?

I doubt it, as most of the "indigenous naming systems" people make noise about here are gestalts and vague notions of numerous systems that criss-cross and contradict each other.

We've been over this repeatedly and I really don't feel that generous towards the position of people who attempt to advance "a system" that doesn't actually exist.

Furthermore...

There is no "indigenous model"...indigenous people are not a singular entity. Discussing them as such is absurd at best. The "info here" that you refer to isn't informative. It's not tied to anything, it offers no actual meaning, it doesn't advance anything.

And finally, this is entirely fallacious reasoning:




Utilizing concepts of scientific botany and the nomenclatural rules laid out by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

Perhaps research the process of botanical nomenclature/taxonomy and you will get some insight into how this is done.


This has zero bearing on botanical nomenclature/taxonomy.


Aya is native to the Western hemisphere, so this is a bit of a bizarre statement. That said, it's also meaningless. Plants are plants, they all have morphological traits that can be classified. The only question is how are those traits parsed. I already addressed this earlier when I acknowledged discrepancies between coherent nomenclatural systems.

If a plant has pinnate leaves, it has pinnate leaves. This is independent of any system. If your system says "this is plant A" and mine says "this is plant B" that is a gap that can be bridged, because we can both acknowledge that the plant we are talking about has pinnate leaves and see where the discrepancy is arising.

In fact, this issue is evidenced precisely in discussions about Psychotria alba and Psychotria carthagenensis. P. alba is a synonym of P. carth, rather than a separate plant, according to the most up to date botanical classifications. However, we can see what morphological characteristics have been used to distinguish it as a separate species in the past and could, therefore, easily engage with indigenous systems that actually differentiate these as two plants.


Actually, botanical study of plants used in ayahuasca is older than 50 years. And, as I just demonstrated, this is a fallacious claims that holds no water.


This is also a fallacy. The experiential component has no bearing on plant morphology or systems of classification.

I've addressed the shortcomings of my "colored list of words" at numerous points in different discussions, including this one. It's really frustrating (and pretty ignorant) when people start banging the "indigenous people say..." drum in general, but even moreso when it's simply not relevant to the discussion at hand. Any indigenous nomenclatural system could be discussed using botanical concepts of taxonomy and morphology, even if that system contradicted currently accepted species concepts.

Hope that makes sense.

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating my many fallacies

you misunderstand me im not suggesting we adopt the indigenous our south american naming system, which i am in agreement, there is no one indigenous sytstem there are many and there isnt much system to it. i was suggesting we adopt their approach to the plants, although i didnt make myself very clear, but what i was saying is basically a spiritual vs reductionist viewpoint tword ayahuasca, and that i prefer the former approach. This is my opinion therefore not a "fallacy". I realise that may be slightly off topic for this thread but found it relevant to the latest unfoldings of the discussion...

You cant tell my my opinions are fallacy, it offends me and also puts you in a false place of authority to declare what is and isnt fallacy based on your own opinions and beliefs. i dont hold to your system, therefore what i say is entiirely valid regardless of what you want to call it. within your belief structure what i say is fallacy, but that doesnt make you correct, it means we disagree.

you say it doesnt matter if they talked to the shamans or rather sought the help of people already working with the plants in question? well no to a reductionist it wouldnt matter i suppose but to me it matters quite a bit. the fact you so confidently dismiss that as just having no bearing on botany shows me you didnt think about what was said, and also further demonstrates scientific ignorance and insensitivity in these manners. it doesnt matter what they have to say about it is that what your telling me?

and case in point, you say it doesnt matter if they drink or not because once again it has no bearing? maybe not for coming up with names for vines it doesnt, but for understanding the differences between the psychactive effects of vines it is the only thing that matters. thats why i say you should listen to what they say about the vines because they know thm in a way these scientist never will.

And just so were clear, the only thing i proposed is that when speaking of vines state the origin, the name it was given, and the vendor or source. for our purposes, That is going to tell alot more than your list, because according to that list most all of the vines we work with will all fall under the name b. cappi, when there could be big differences between them.

Just think of strains of weed, theres indica sativa and ruderalis scientifically, but we all know theres a great deal of potential difference in potency and effects even within the same strain, such as indica.

now if you cant admit i have a point there ill just call you stubborn i mean who has even heard of most of the vines on your list, it seems almost obsolete to me

and who made up the names for strains of bud? such as ak 47? remind me was it the scientists or was it the user base (smokers) whom for the purposes of this discussion we will call " the indigenous "

ank ok maybe 50 is a little shy,,, what 100 then? 200 tops? still shy of the tens of thousands of years of the indigenous have been learning about aya.

ill take the word of bob marley any day over someone who hasnt smoked weed but abstractly tries to explian it away with words

And just so were clear, the only thing i proposed is that when speaking of vines state the origin, the name it was given, and the vendor or source. for our purposes, That is going to tell alot more than your list, because according to that list most all of the vines we work with will all fall under the name b. cappi, when there could be big differences between them.

i am not presenting a system, please respectfully adress my post without off handedly dismissing it with a quote

and remind me the subject of this thread? is it " present me an accurate and comprehensive naming system fo aya vines" or is it " Black Ayahuasca Vine and Other Types of vine"

so your the one roaring in like a bull in a china shop demanding i present a system or shut up. I just get sick of the authoritarian dismissive tone people take on here to feed their egos and be right all the time.

just speaking my feelings, we are equals so treat everyone as such

We don't discuss vendors here. % alk varies even among specimens of the same species (whether recognized by indigenous or non-indigenous botanists).

Your earlier claims were fallacious and/or not relevant to the discussion at hand. Feel free to explain why they aren't, but simply claiming that "no they're not" isn't adequate, especially when I've demonstrated that they are.

Your points are not actually stemming from any ethnographic/experiential knowledge, but your own projections of "indigenous knowledge" which is both problematic and not worth engaging with.

This thread is now incredibly off-topic in a way that highlights precisely what I attempted to illustrate in my prior post. There is no merit to this vein of discussion because it doesn't contribute to anything. It seems to me that it is purely emotional.

please walk me through how you demonstrated i am wrong? i see no evidence there as much as im just saying there not fallacy you are just saying they are, but i see no proof other than your opinion

yes snozz its emotional because it offends me when you dismiss my point of view. and i do have experiential knowledge with aya, ive probably used it hundreds more times than you. not that that matters but dont say i dont have experiential knowledge.

and there not projections of my understanding of indigenous wisdom, any more than anyones perwonal beliefs are projections. Tell me are you currently a peer reviewed scientist? if not everything you say is a mere projection of what you believe is the scientific viewpoint.

and id appreciate if you would addres my points about drawing the parrlell to the canabis naming system, instead of just picking out points to take me down on and ignoring the rest of what i say

in your last post that started with we dont discuss.... you just again dismissed me and then didnt address a single point i made. my point is this. if i were in the science sub forum, go ahead call my thoughts fallacy, but were not in the science forum brother, and is this forum about science or dmt? otherwise let me share my opinion without saying im wrong its disrespectful and puts off a negative vibe,

See: Argument from authority

Additionally, your whole premise is that botanical concepts are invalid because many professional botanists who have classified these plants have not drunk them. However, this has no bearing on plant morphology. This is irrelevant. And your argument about alk content is off-base as well. 50g of a baby B. caapi plant is nothing like 50g of a 75 year old B. caapi plant. Just because these two specimens facilitate two dramatically different experiences does not make them separate plants, in any botanical system.

Your argument has no basis in any botanical system or ethnographic/experiential knowledge. It is simply your own poorly-reasoned assertions and romanticizations of an imagined indigenous monoculture. I'm sorry, I know I'm not being pleasant, but I'm completely fed up with this.

and id appreciate if you would addres my points about drawing the parrlell to the canabis naming system, instead of just picking out points to take me down on and ignoring the rest of what i say

in your last post that started with we dont discuss.... you just again dismissed me and then didnt address a single point i made. my point is this. if i were in the science sub forum, go ahead call my thoughts fallacy, but were not in the science forum brother, and is this forum about science or dmt? otherwise let me share my opinion without saying im wrong its disrespectful and puts off a negative vibe,

And as this is where we are now at, I'm gonna say peace.

Fwiw, by experiential knowledge, I meant with regards to indigenous botanical systems/botanists, but your interpretation is far more amusing.

drinking ayahuasca is not relevant here really. Whats relevant is actual botanical data...and experience of people in the jungle, working with curranderos in different areas. As for the moment, I am going to say that the only vine we can say with some level of certainty is authentic "red ayahuasca" from a folk perspective, is Banisteriopsis Muricata..which you implied earlier is easy to distinguish from Banisteriopsis caapi based on the cross section pattern-which is isn't at all. So I then have to wonder if you have ever even seen Banisteriopsis muricata in person...before the ID's were worked out with the vendors in question, who knows what vines who had. If you got vine before that, than you could have gotten anything..including just some random jungle vine.

No offence become..I love ya man..but this is just too complex a topic for any of us to have too much imput on, and experience drinking ayahuasca means very little in relation to it all.

This is why I asked Alan Shoemaker about it. I would encourage anyone with contacts down there, or in the area themselves to look into this more. That's the best way to figure this out...hopefully in abut 10 months I will be in iquitos for a bit and I can look into this a bit deeper.

and stop putting words in my mouth man. geez. what i said was we should listen to wat they have to say, please quote me were i said all botanical systems are invalid because they havent drunk. really, point it out if its there. your putting me on this platform of what you think im saying but your notlstening. you can use your dismissive and condescending statements all you want but hopefully others here will see that. you are not god you dont know everything and your human just like me even if you try to hide behind untouchable reasoning and robotic statements.

and please not all b cappi is the same, tell that to people like me who have had black aya that tore the world apart at 25 grams no dmt. its just wrong man. just like bud varies in potency so does aya and its not all age difference.

your fed up eh? cant take oppising opinions? what about the others what do you guys think. i realize im not being pleasant but im sick of being insulted.

ill say it again so you can address it: Is this the science forum or dmt nexus

glad i could ammuse you because you have amused me with your stubborn reductionism.

your closed off, no room for new knowledge cause you already know it all

"and please not all b cappi is the same, tell that to people like me who have had black aya that tore the world apart at 25 grams no dmt. its just wrong man. just like bud varies in potency so does aya and its not all age difference."

I have had vine like that from one of the most well known and respected vendors, only it was labeled Cielo.