Jamie thank you for treating me with respect, really.

What jamie said wasnt in agreement with me but the tone was respectful, i appreciate that.

it is a complex topic but we can still discuss it for fun if we want, and if thas not fun for some then they dont have to discuss it. My issue is no longer about the vines but a simple matter of respect. snozz has yet to address most of my points.

im sorry for getting so clearly worked up, but im not perfect and dont present an image of trying to be. Just a fellow nexian saying you offended me and hurt my feelings, and i dont know why you came to the thread in the first place other then to correct people and bash on them. it didnt turn into an argument till you came and said, " your flat wrong now shut up and go back to not diecussng this topic"

i havent been very active lately but bet i could find a number of threads where snozz buts in wielding his infallible hammer of reason but cuts short productive conversation and offends people in the process.

I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings.

I stand by my statements regarding your assertions. Most of them do not address the points raised. It's become circular at this point, so for me, I see no point in continuing, but I'm happy to apologize for my part in your hurt feelings.

I've never claimed to be infallible or superior...so from my perspective, your post feels like a whole lot of false humility.

If that's a misinterpretation, that's my bad, but that's what it feels like on this end.

Oh, and for what it's worth, there is no dichotomy between The Nexus and "a science forum." There are questions that science is not equipped to answer, but the scientific method forms a large part of the Nexus backbone.

my point is, and I think that this sort of spotlights so much of the speculation going on, that we have all had Banisteriopsis caapi vines(or lookalikes like Muricata) with lables like "black vine", "white vine", "cielo vine" etc...but this is all 3rd hand by the time it reaches us. You can have different flushes from the same strain of cubensis and the potency will vary...

It is easier to just focus on what we know..we do know that B. muricata is a different vine from B. caapi and does produce a red tea, and people in the jungle with experience working first hand in these folk traditions have verified that it is red ayahuasca..we know that alicia anisopetala for instance(if the ID is even correct) is being sold as "black ayahuasca"..yet it does not even activate admixture, and we have at least third hand information from a currandero that a very similar vine obtained in iquitos was nothing more than a random jungle vine...you see how tricky taking a vendors word for ANYTHING can be? So, if I say I have black ayahuasca, that I got from someone who said it was black ayahuasca, and it was very strong and Banisteriopsis caap...what does that mean other than we can say it was some really strong B. caapi that someone who sells it says it is black ayahuasca? It might be black ayahuacsa..or it might just be strong caapi so they said it's black ayahuasca for marketing purposes.

I just don't trust vendors words anymore... and as a side note, I would like to know if the mckenna red was/is actually Banisteriopsis muritcata. I suspect muricata has been going around for a long time, as simply a strain of Banisteriopsis caapi. Most people would never be able to tell the difference aside from the color of the tea.

And then there are other weird as hell looking vines marketed now called "boa ayahuasca" etc..and I doubt these are even in the Banisteriopsis genus..seems most people in iquitos claim to have never even seen these before..

This is kind of like the discussions of what the number of ribs on a pachanoi means within folk traditions of the andes...it's all who says this or that..but it's all second hand unless you can go direct to a traditional currandero, and even then your dealing with shifting paradigms etc...

i dont have false humility, being humble defines me as a person. Im a man of the heart, not of the brain. But my opinion is equally valid nonetheless.

and not to drag this down again, but you did not address my most valid points like the correlation between cannbis naming and aya naming. (or any plant drug for that matter)

you may not claim to think of yourself as superior, but thats how it feels on this end

im aware of how the scientific method ties in with the nexus, but the whole purpose of the science forum is for peer review and scientific accuracy, and while i know the forum has a policy against misinfo, the science forum would be the only one were scientific accuracy is requirement. no?

Surely you see the irony here



Cannabis strains are just that, strains of a given species. Cultivars but not subspecies or varieties, at least not at the level you are speaking of. So what? Different specimens of the same species can have different chemical profiles. This doesn't mean anything and really isn't at all relevant to the discussion. We've seen verified B. caapi specimens that contained harmine, harmaline and THH and other specimens that only had harmine, or just harmine and THH.

This variability offers zero commentary on species differentiation and both indigenous and non-indigenous botanical systems are subject to this variability.



No. You need to be able to provide evidence for your claims throughout the forum, unless you are in the TTLG/Spritiuality subforums.

From the attitude:

Hey this is ridiculous. And I'm really fed up with the attacks.

I made no claims man, i was merely sharing my opinion. Something were free to do. What are we even fighting about here?

Can I not express my opinion if it differs from yours?

The quote from the attitude page says if you are stating things as facts you need evidence, when what we had here was more of a brainstorm, a discussion. I didn't state one thing as fact or make a single claim, i was merely involved in the discussion. So if i said something that doesn't make it some "claim" its just a comment on an online message board. I was offering thoughts on how to not label vines or make some system, just simply to describe more about the vine where it came from etc. I threw in some personal comments about what i think, who cares? can i not do that?

I don't see how me saying that turned in the this ridiculous argument

I drew the parallel between gangja and aya, because if a particular strain had a high potency content, it is desirable. therefore it is in the users advantage to distinguish the best ones from the others. Like giving it a name, like cielo. How in the world does that make not sense or "bear any relevance"? Can someone back me up here?

I mean really think about this.

We were having a discussion, quite happily i might add.

Then the authority comes in and presents us with a chart, and calls everything heresay, then what all other disucssion is just supposed to stop?

Oh no need to talk further its all on the chart there so everybody can hush up.

I admit to calling you out a bit in my first post after yours, and I'm sorry the intention was for discussion, defiantly not to fight with you. but i also think you really need to learn to see past differences in opinion man. not everyone will agree with you, and you have to accept that

It would be more productive if you can point out what in particular you don't agree with on that chart. As far as I can tell it seems in line with the current botanical data on the Banisteriopsis genus, but I am not trained in taxonomy etc. I am sure the data will be revised a number of times in the future to some extent, and that is to expected with taxonomy.

Speculation is fine, and should be welcomed, but it does need a focal point of reference otherwise such speculation looses relevance pretty quick.

Understood,

I don't have an issue with the chart at all, although i admit i don't gather much meaning from it other than it states that these vines exist? It is a list of the relatives of the ayahuasca vine? Thats fine but there are no other tools for identifying other than the names, i mean is there at least pictures of each sample to compare to, or where does one go with this list? Its just a list of names. I could equally list red, black, cielo etc. but it tells nothing about the vines. Maybe if the chart came with a collection of photographed samples?

Also like i said, 90% of the vines we use would fall under b. cappi, so the existing method is more specific than the chart IMO. The shamans named them different names because they have different character i assume, and i don't see how that character is reflected in the chart.

I agree with you jamie, stick to what we know and don't over trivialize it. Thats why i think it is preferable to stick to the names the vines have, like cielo, black, grey, white, whatever, but just add more specific info as well.

Everyone pretty well knows what your saying when you say cielo aya, it is the standard for ayahuasca, that is pretty well accepted.

You think what is called red is actually muricate? I don't know about this, i stated it is easy to tell the difference, but my understanding of muricata is this: http://kiwiboancaya.net/...ne/muricata1-500x500.jpg

Like you said that could be incorrect, i admit that i think this because kiwi told me.

Either way there are red vines particularly the mckenna red that I'm most familiar with, bears the same cross section as cielo, but the vine is actually more red, and the bark is darker. So you are saying that you think this is B. Muricata, because thats what shoemaker said? Just trying to understand.

Alicia anisopetala, no one really should worry about, its not ayahuasca.

so then you are left with the random black grey and white vines out there, the ones we know little about. which i have seen several of that also bear the same cross section as cappi, only the color differs. They might be b. cappi, they might be one of the other names on the list, but does it really matter as long as we know what were talking about.

Jamie i would like to start a thread with you just to come to a consensus of where where at with this, i mean a thread that starts from what we know, with clear pictures and info? you could post some of the convo with shoemaker maybe?

Its all good I bear no ill will, and i didn't mean to meaninglessly argue without a point of reference. I had one, but I'm not sure it came through so clearly, but i still stand by my viewpoint.

I mean jamie you know a lot about aya right? but when you see the names on that list, does it mean anything to you? Like you said your not trained in taxonomy... Neither am I, or the other 90% of people who will work with these vines. So does that really have any meaning to us? We all have to study botany and taxonomy to discuss different types of ayahuasca vines, no thanks!

Let's tune the discussion into a more constructive friendly tone yes?

I think snozz's point is very significant, in that discussing about random names that someone gives is not only meaningless (because its not reproducible or reliable), but also possibly misleading. For example, I tested a "black caapi" extract from gibran which he had extracted like 2% harmalas, and it was pure harmalas. But then for quite a while, most of the "black caapi" on the market was (is?) alicia anisopetala, which contains no harmalas. So what sense is it to talk about black caapi? Its counterproductive. Also, indigenous people often have contradictory or different classifications, there is no unity amongst all groups.

But, BecometheOther has a good point, in that we could potentially talk about specific vendors or maybe specific tribes. So we could say, the ashaninka in such area of such river, have this or that kind of ayahuasca. In the case of vendors, the problem with identifying them is that The Traveler specifically asked people not to talk about vendors of dried plant materials, only live plants. I think in this case it would be useful but we gotta respect him.

Maybe we can find a way to somehow semi-identify vendors without actually naming them, but in a way that if people will already buy from that vendor, they can check the list. Like for example using the first and last letter of the vendor name, or something?

It would be tons of trouble and I'm not sure how many people are willing to help out but we could potentially get all the samples tested for alkaloids with gc/lc-ms, maybe botanically identified if we have good pics of cross section, flowers, etc, and associate them in a list. So in that sense, I don't think the discussion is 'shut down' by snozz, but just that, we would have to take this much further and be more specific about things so that it makes any sense, otherwise this would be counterproductive and not really help.

Hope that clears up things a bit.

Thanks for chiming in, end. Here's some elaboration


So, this is why I'm frustrated. Not only have I presented starting points for this (see: A Visual Guide for the Identification of Ayahuasca Constituents as one example) which anyone could expand on if they wished, but you can literally pull up voucher specimens for all of the plants I listed. Why should I be responsible for pulling all of this together for people when I've already contributed information on how to do this and where to go to do this in numerous threads. I don't think that level of hand-holding is necessary or should be expected.

This feels like such an absurd accusation when I've literally poured countless hours into sharing what I know as well as how to advance that knowledge with this community in numerous places. The names that I listed are demonstrably more informative than "red, black, cielo etc." precisely because I can get you morphological descriptions and voucher specimens/sketches for all of them. No one here who has been talking about "indigenous systems" can make that claim. That's precisely why I invited people to present any indigenous systems they are familiar with earlier in this thread.

It's frustrating to have someone repeatedly claim that their names are just as informative as the botanical names when they're demonstrably not. If they are, then share that info here.


Now hold on. These are both huge assumptions. And what are they based on? This assertion as it stands is meaningless without evidence, and you have provided none.

Now, there are cases where we can look at the evidence, and afaik, the evidence supports what I've been saying throughout this entire thread. For example, B. caapi var. caupuri and B. caapi var. tukunaca are unpublished varietals of B. caapi that have demonstrable morphological differences as well as anecdotal differences in potency. We can differentiate these plants using botanical morphology. However, they were not relevant to that list for several reasons, primarily because they were not included on the original list in the first place, and therefore had no place in the reduced list.


Except that this doesn't actually work. There are different groups of people that use ayahausca that use the same colors or names to refer to different plants. Botanical nomenclature is the only system we have that we actually have standardized information for in a coherent format. This is what I've been saying since that old Identifying ayahuasca thread, and it still holds true. At least, no one has been able to present a system that could compete with that level of clarity and standardization.

Again, this is why I said no one here has the experiential knowledge/understanding of any indigenous classification system to the degree that would be necessary to carry out the task of confidently naming equivalents.


Yes. If you want to start talking about making equivalencies between the diverse cultures that use ayahausca and have autonomous botanical classification systems and the actual traits of the plants, then you should study botany. The notion that this is too much to ask is more than a little astounding. I mean, this is like declaring, "We all have to study some rudimentary chemistry to discuss the principles of a DMT extraction? No thanks!" It just doesn't make sense if you're actually looking to have a constructive discussion that ties all of these systems together.

And that should be the end goal, no? Creating a body of knowledge that is translatable across cultures, precisely so that these plants are not relegated to being discussed solely by their current botanical classifications. This has been what I've been working towards since we first started discussing these issues as it's literally the "Rosetta Stone" of ayahuasca. Creating such a result would actually be incredibly useful from numerous perspectives.

You are assuming so much and not everyone agrees with your assumptions. In some of the cases there are good reasons not to accept your assumptions. As was put forward earlier, who is "the shamans"? Did they all agree on a common naming scheme? The scientific method may have some pricipal and some contemporary pragmatic limitations, but at least it explicitly tries to reach an universal understanding. For this same reason I find your disqualification of "western science" unfair. The scientific method is in principle open to anyone, not only to "westerners" (again, whatever you assume that to be). You can participate too, by extending and enriching the current taxonomic scheme with (objective and verifiable) anthropological data, such as local naming schemes and attached contextual semantics - ie. what names are given where and why.


In this thread, you have namedropped vendors several times and even give an explicit link. There is a forum rule against this. I think it is not fair of you, as a full member, to disregard the rules of the forum, while new members get downvoted for such behavior. What example are you setting to them? I suspect that the only reason that it has not been forcefully been removed yet by a moderator is that some moderators have become a "side" in this thread and are now hesitant to take action because of fear that intervention could be taken as a retribution against you personally. Well, I have nothing against you personally and I respectfully ask that you hold yourself to the same standards as other members and remove these violations.


You see, it is one of the reasons for worry. Random vines, not just alicia anisopetala do get passed off as "ayahuasca" by some vendors. Taxonomy by the scientific method is the best way out of these confusions. If we stay with hard or impossible to objectify naming schemes, there is no good way to force vendors to provide accurate product information. We need vendors to provide honest and accurate information, or people might get hurt. Please think of the children!


If we want to have a meaningful and open conversation on these topics, then surely every participant will have to agree to a common ground for facts and understanding. This does take effort and requires an investment in common naming schemes by all the participants. If we do not do this, and every participant withdraws into a naming scheme of their own, we'll end up with a babylonian confusion and no real communication. None of us are the ultimate perfect experts, but we have to at least make an honest and decent try.

Of course, you are free to go your own way and have your own practice, with your own names and your own meanings. Nobody here can forbid you that, nor do they want to, I assume. But when a debate ensues and you want to participate in it, don't expect everybody else to take your assumptions, your conventions and your conveniences for granted only because you say so. That is just not reasonable.

For reasons of public safety, that might make sense. But I don't think we should stray into the area of Best Buyers' Guides. Or, that's how I interpret the current Attitude rules and guidelines.

In practice another problem is that the vendors change suppliers, have different batches at different times, etc. Such information as you propose, however truthful, complete and well intended, has an expiration date, after which it is not fit for consumption anymore and should be removed from the shelves.

"Either way there are red vines particularly the mckenna red that I'm most familiar with, bears the same cross section as cielo, but the vine is actually more red, and the bark is darker. So you are saying that you think this is B. Muricata"

That does sound like Banisteriopsis muricata.

I just took a photo of muricata for a reference..

"I don't have an issue with the chart at all, although i admit i don't gather much meaning from it other than it states that these vines exist? It is a list of the relatives of the ayahuasca vine?"

Ayahuasa is a folk distinction, not Latin botanical nomenclature...Banisteriopsis muricata for instance is not a relative of ayahuasca...it IS ayahuasca..the folk classifications in relation to plants can possibly be much broader than Latin designations ascribed to specific species by taxonomists.

That chart is some of the most solid data we have for classification of vines of the Banisteriopsis genus. It is of much less use when trying to sort out systems of folk botanical knowledge, but should not be be entirely discarded.

"I mean jamie you know a lot about aya right? but when you see the names on that list, does it mean anything to you? Like you said your not trained in taxonomy."

No I am not a taxonomist.. but I work and am trained in horticulture, so I can understand and respect the work of taxonomists as having some understanding of the botanical nomenclature of plants I am working with is part of my job.

Id like to reply but will wait until i have the time to really think about all the points, but just want to clear a few things up.

Understand, Im not suggesting that we throw out botanical nomenclature or taxonomy uot at all. And snozz i definetly did not intend to disrespect your list you have invested your time in. i honestly admitted i dont really understand it. This is because im not familiar with most of those names, so i dont understand which variety each name is referring to.

And pitubo, I mentioned only that that particular vendors identification of b. muricata was what i was familiar with. Then i google searched b. muricata for a picture, and clicked open image in window, and copy pasted the address. the image just happened to be from that website, l wasnt trying to link to their site.

and lastly, very clearly, yes different people in different areas use color names to refer to different plants, so that is not an accurate basis to go off of. However, this hurdle is solved by adding additional information, origin, vendor, and the name associated with it. And this i admit wouldnt garuantee 100% accracy if a vendor were to change sources and not share that information. But for simple purposes of discussion (for our purposes) it does clear things up quite a bit more than someone just saying, i had black ayahuasca, or what is black ayahuasca like. It is an easy step forwards in other words.

The misunderstanding here is you think im saying this should replace the scientific classification, when im just saying it is a somewhat more accurate way to refer to vines than simply going off of the color or other name given to it.

it would be interesting to find samples of the more obscure ones and through taxonomy see which name it matches up with. varieties like thunder ayahuasca, the famed most potent black ayahuasca, and other varieties like white ayahuasca, what is that according to science?

I think in the case where a vine looks like cappi, but the color differes in makes good sense to call it that color. and if there are morphological differences like caupuri, that is still usually distinguished in the name. for example var. caupuri is known as warmi or woman ayahuasca because of the round knotted balls it forms. So it is given a different name, much in the same way in the taxonomy system it would be given a new name. it almost breaks it down to genus and species, genus being ayahuasca (per their system) species being woman?

either way im just saying its one way. being able to scientiffically classify the varieties and come up with samples would definetly ensure more accuracy, im not arguing that.

The mckenna red does look like that, but the bark is more red in color than that. To me yes that vine you posted looks like yellow vine, or standard b. cappi. If you are correct about that theory that b. muricata is the true ayahuasca that would be an interesting finding. Is the dosage on that like standard aya? also there are different prep methods for muricata i thought more was used and it was boiled down to a thick paste...

It could be similiar to how t. panchanoi is know as the san pedro, but san pedro can really refer to many species, in many areas wachuma and peruvian torch are the preferred san pedro.

"If you are correct about that theory that b. muricata is the true ayahuasca that would be an interesting finding."

Well, I never said that. I never said the ayahuasca..I said it is ayahuasca, not a relative of ayahuasca. Banisteriopsis caapi and Banisteriopsis muricata are both ayahuasca.

The vine I showed above is not any kind of B.caapi...look at the color of brew it produces..consistent with what those in Iquitos have told me of red ayahuasca..

also, forget everything that guy from k1w1 has said..the guy is a scammer and not credible, and steals peoples money. Everything he has said is worthless IMO. In reference to boiling down to to a thick paste, that was in reference to Alicia. The doses for muricata are pretty close to caapi. You might need 70-80g of muricata to compare to 60 of most caapi. The experience is pretty much the same. Main alkaloid is harmine.