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.

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 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.

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?

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.

(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

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.
http://botanicaldimensio...botanical-forest-garden/

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

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?