So I and a number of other people have observed that this vendor has had "Black B.caapi vine" that looks exactly like Alicia Anisopetala. No caapi looks like this. This is an issue becasue Alicia Anisopetala has not been found in the TLC tests endless did to contain any harmine, harmaline or THH, or any other known harmalas for that matter. I have tested this vine on 2 occasions that I got from another bulk supplier who has it labled as what it is..I can tell you that it is active, but different from Caapi and rue. It feels harmalaish but is obviously not caapi. Becasue of the unknown alkaloid content it is a concern that people would be ingesting this vine thinking it is Caapi and contains harmine and THH as the main alkaoloids. The alkaloids are unknown at this point and therefore so it the safety profile of this plant. To sell it labled as B.caap when it is Alicia is entirley unethical and irresponsible.

I contacted this vendor about this, assuming that is is possible that maybe they were just unaware of this fact. I linked them to the thread here called "poorly understood ayahuasca vines" that has proper ID photos of alicia..and test results from endless that show it does NOT contain harmine, harmaline or THH. I have received no response still 5 days or so later.

Another member messaged this vendor about something unrelated, and durring someback and forth messages asked them the same question about this vine that seems to look exactly like alicia.

This was the response that this other member sent to me..

"You are indeed correct on the "Black caapi" being Alicia vine. However, when I used to list it as that the vine did not sell for anything. My vendor in Peru suggested I simply call it Black caapi vine since it contains the same alkaloids as caapi vine. It's strange because I'm a stickler for accuracy, but at the same time I need to have items sell on my website rather than have them sit there because people don't know what it is. I'm sorry if that sounds deceitful or shady, I'm just being honest with you. That being said, I think I will be changing it back to being listed as Alicia because it seems now that more people are in the know. Thanks for pointing that out to me and hope to hear from you soon. Take care."

I am going to just leave it at that and let that speak for itself. I dont wish to destroy this vendor and I personally have never had any interaction with them beyond this. I am making this public here becasue some people may have gotten some of this vine from this vendor under the false idea that it is Banisteriopsis Caapi..and these people have the right to know what it is that they are actaully ingesting and paying hard earned money for..

Thank you very much for investigating, Jamie.

I can easily forgive a simple mislabeling, but to bluntly state the item was changed simply to sell more product is highly unethical... Even if the alkaloids are identical. I will never purchase from a vendor who engages in this kind of practice.

Again, can't thank you enough for following through and notifying us.

I also saw a while back a couple other places that seemed to have alicia labled as Caapi..so just be aware of this.

And in this case, they're not. Afaik, we're the only people who have analyzed A. anisopetala, and its GC-MS profile didn't match anything in the NIST database.

Seconded;

Greed is the main motive of th4e vendor if he keeps on consciously mislabeling alicia as caapi for the sake of selling it alone...

Something equally important also crosses my mind:
There have been quite some people that have complained of extracting caapi (using manske, basic precipitation etc...) and getting zero yields out. It is very likely that these people did not have caapi to begin with, which would explain the erroneous failed extractions.

They have so far not bothered to change it back to the correct name either..so I guess they were really not going to bother with it even now that people are in the know.