As I read now a lot about MGs this subject more and more crystallized out. And as I couldn't find anything about this by "search" on the Nexus, I started a new thread:

It seems there is a big issue, if I. Violacea is a synonym for I. Tricolor.

Most research papers, people, etc. think it is the same.
But as it seems some people disagree.
E.g. the current english entry of Wikipedia clearly wants to point out the difference (it seems someone was eager there...)

For as it seems, the description of I. Violacea describes it as only having a white flower.
This by itself is IMHO not so conflicting, as there is e.g. also the "Pearly Gates" of I. Tricolor with white flowers.
But one thing made me rethink:
It is said, I.Violacea blooms in the night, whereas all the I.Tricolors start to bloom in the morning (therefore the name "Morning Glory" ).

If that's really the case, then these are indeed two different plants.

But what plants were originally used?
According to the german Wikipedia entry the seeds are brown, not black.

If this is really the case, then I would exclude I.Violacea being the real Zapotek "Badoh Negro", as the seeds aren't black.
Then I personally would conclude the plant originally used was I. Tricolor.

Also when the propagation map of I.Violacea from here is correct:
http://convolvulaceae.myspecies.info/taxonomy/term/7194/descriptions
Then there are no such plants in south america. So then they were surely not used there...
(OTOH on this site, they say the seeds are black...it's really just a mess...)

The only one work I know which seriously tried to handle this problem is the one from Manitz ("Was ist Ipomoea violacea", 1977). There you can really see the naming mess around these plants...

What do other people think about this naming mess?

All I can add here is personal experience.

Home grown Ipomoeas - largely from packets labelled as, IIRC, I. tricolor - have produced seeds of brown-black or pale yellow-brown coloration, sometimes both in the same pod. Is very dark brown the same as black? And how pale a shade of brown are we dealing with by comparison?

I'll have to see how this year's batch of Heavenly Blues turns out. These are definitely I. tricolor. The seeds were dark brown, almost black.

A few of the packets I've grown over the years have been labelled as I. violacea but my record-keeping has been non-existent.

The very few trials of psychoactivity I've done with these seeds have essentially proved inconclusive. With any luck, I'll be able to do TLC on this year's crop, although that's not really the question here.

How does I. purpurea fit into the equation? That species is definitely inactive, isn't it?

The problem seems to be that according to the definitions above, basically all I.Violacea sold commercially would actually be I.Tricolor. And I.Tricolor definitely is active.

But what is strange to me: In some very early descriptions it is said to be from America. So from this POV Violacea would have to be a synonym for Tricolor.

I think for the future I will just always call them Tricolor, so that there surely never can be a confounding.



From what I heard so far, it kinda seems like that. Although I could hardly find much data about this.
E.g. in the report study from Juszczak ("Recreational Use of D-Lysergamide from the Seeds of Argyreia Nervosa, Ipomoea Tricolor, Ipomoea Violacea, and Ipomoea Purpurea in Poland", 2013)
it seems to have some activity.

Edit:
Also in the summary from Amor-Prats ("New Sources of Ergoline Alkaloids within the Genus Ipomoea", 1993) it seems alkaloids were found in Purpurea. Although the amount varies widely...(see attached pic)
But here there was no distinction what kind of alkaloids were present...

But e.g. if you look at the work of Wilkinson et al ("ERGOT ALKALOID CONTENTS OF lpomoea lacunosa, I. hederaceae,I. trichocarpa, AND 1. purpurea SEED", 1986), then it seems their alkaloid profile is not so much into the direction of LSH/LSA like Tricolor, but rather diverse.

^Cool, thanks! That's exactly the kind of data I was looking for with that question. I couldn't find the paper I was looking for in my records, but I'm fairly sure it was the Wilkinson one.

It strikes me as a little strange, BTW, that a plant named "violacea" would be described as having white flowers only.

Given that the alkaloids are produced by an endophytic fungus, I'm not surprised to see this inconsistency of results.



The fact remains, it's easier to type, read or say 'tricolor' than 'violacea'!


EDIT: I see that many popular varieties of Morning Glory are of the species I. purpurea, e.g. 'Grandpa Ott's', which I have definitely grown and I think these were the ones with the two different colours of seed in the same pod. Not that that goes a whole lot of a way towards clearing up the original question...

I like this kind of attitude


I thought the same. It's just a mess...




Just my personal opinion: I think the ones used by mesoamericans was what is now known as I.Tricolor. I don't really care, if they today wanna call I.Violacea as a synonym for it or if they wanna take it is a synonym for the Moonbeachflower I. Tuba.

I think one must just be aware that there is this inconsistency today...

As a layman I'm just surprised that it seems sometimes these botanists left quite a naming mess...



One must also be aware that some sellers take Purpurea and Tricolor as a synonym, although they are clearly two different plants (one is hairy, the other not).
E.g. I have seen "Grandpa Ott's" listed as Tricolor...

BTW: If you wanna download papers like the ones above for free. Go here and search for them: Scimag

My GP Ott's were definitely hairy. I have seeds harvested from them which really ought to have gone in the ground (or down the hatch) by now. Perhaps there's still time to compare them with the Heavenly Blues. The seeds that for the moment can be assumed to be I. purpurea and come in two different colours are also smaller and less elongated than the Heavenly Blue seeds. I'll see how the seeds turn out from this year's grow as this could solely be down to environmental factors, i.e. being in northern Europe.


I become less surprised as each year passes. Cactus nomenclature - a bit messy in places. Mycological nomenclature - messy in places. Humans... messy!

BTW in this recent study from Nowak et al. ("Identification and determination of ergot alkaloids in Morning Glory cultivars", 2016) they didn't find any ergot type alkaloids in I. Purpurea (they tested from 2 sources: "Morning Call" and the other had no special name).

The funny thing about this paper is, that one of their seed suppliers sold their "Heavenly Blue" as I. Purpurea.
This is again an example how wrongly some seed suppliers tag their products...

Edit:
BTW: They discovered a huge variation in amount of alkaloids within single seeds.

This is true, yes, the variation can be confusing and possibly incorrect but I. tricolor seeds and I. purpurea seeds look quite different from one another. The difference being smooth black and thinner seeds between wide, black(maybe brown) gritty seeds. I. purpurea is also inactive, correct. Tricolor seeds can vary in amounts of ergolines, yes, but they are in there.

Attached a pic of I.Tricolor (left) vs I.Purpurea (right) seeds.

Sorry, it isn't the best pic...

The elongation stands out as a dominant characteristic of tricolor seeds, too. Not to mention the size comparison.