thanx soulfood, No green housing at all mate...

Parrot brought it this spring and it was 6 inches high..... now it`s 11 inches high

It`s growing fairly quickly, indoor , window open when hot, shut when getting too cold. Watered quiet often , every 3-4 days.No fertilizer used.
Latitude of growing location is +52 degrees.




I`m so confused.... I know you phlux already identified it as a Peruvianus..........I was interested more in Coatl`s opinion as she was disqualified(banned) first time he posted these pictures

OK SO WE DON`T KNOW, DO WE ? you both said it "look like" no it "surely is"

Clues from fellas from corborrea(some cati site) identified it as a peruvianus...BUT ... when chips from the same vendor were ingested the effects weren`t as blisfull and energetic as a mescaline should be, but more sleepy and dreamy like..
Corborea seems a bit weird to ILPT so judging purely by effects, he believe, he has a PEDRO

This fact actually upseting him as he send parrot to get bloody peruvianus. Awgrhhhhhhh :evil: :evil: :evil:

Exactly my point, that's why we need some hard data and good reasoning on this issue!

Definitelly

He doesn`t resemble that exact explanation from corrborea, he only remember it has something to do with that peruvian bird and shape of cacti spines or something

I'd be glad to offer supporting evidence.

Give me a sec.

Your talking about the "Condor".

See post #9

I assume Phlux would call the cacti in post #9 to be Trichocereus peruvianus, while Mr.Smith and myself would most likely consider those to be T. pachanoi.

Read post #9 in the link above for a better understand of the situation of Trichocereus species.

SWIM thinks the results from extractions should be a reasonably clear indicator. As has been found by many on this site, Pach seems to have a lot of other alks in its profile where as Peruvianus consistantly show up with mostly mesc.

By no means conclusive, but if you are leaning one way or the other and need just one more indicator to tip the scales, SWIM thinks an extraction is a good idea

Why would it chemical contents have anything to do with the botanical identification?

Do you think the people who first described these cacti went around extracting them?

Hell no.

Betcha $5 your all using the predominant cultivar "Pachanot" which DOES NOT REPRESENT what TRUE T. pachanoi is!!!

Hey thanks for the help so far everyone and for whoever it is trying to keep up the content level of the thread.

The cactus in the photos i posted was identified to swim by the grower as san pedro/pachanoi, but he's not entirely sure as it doesn't entirely resemble other pedros he's seen in plant shops... then again who knows what they had labelled as pedro.

Swim is based in australasia, where alot of scopulicola come from (or so he's heard?), which is why he asks if it that's what it could be. Also he's got a general love of knowledge and plants and finds this type of thing interesting.

The cacti stands a good two metres high atleast, when in bloom it has a large and very beautiful white flower. It seems greener/yellower/bluer at different times, possibly in relation to the weather and temperature as it's kept outside year round.

He has extracted and bioassayed and it appears to be active but he can't say (or even hazard a geuss) if it's high in non-mescaline alkaloids or not as he hasn't ever cleaned the acetate or tried pure mescaline with which to compare.

Any other photos or info that could help? I'll be in contact with swim a bit in the next few weeks.

That is because it's not a predominant cultivar "Pachanot".

I already said, because Pachanoi have about a 50/50 mix of mescaline and other alkaloids, Peruvianus have a more pure mescaline content. This is something members on this site have frequently verified, its not a coincidence. These are tried and tested results



Perhaps they did, I dont know... which also means you dont know. We have the means now to do it easily, and there are enough people doing it to draw a scientific conclusion about a certain species having roughly x amount of alkaloids etc



SWIM has both actually, he has about 7 different strains of Pachanoi/pachanot that he harvests from, they all throw up a 50/50 mix of alks, the only difference between the pachanot and the real McCoy is the yield. The real McCoy yields about %3.5 The pachanot's yield up to %1 But with every strain, the mix is 50/50

Compare this to well identified Peruvianus and everytime, the mix will be much heavier on the mescaline

Britton & Rose were some of the first people to describe Trichocereus cacti for Western science, not only did they never extract ANY cacti but they didn't even know that Trichocereus contained mescaline until sometime later.



Well that is very interesting.

Can you please post pictures of all the cacti your discussing?

This is great information!

thats an interesting find antichode...makes sense too!

You know Coatl, there is some very wise stuff said in that thread, a lot of which we should listen too...

I found these two comments particularly pertinent



and this

That is right, it's all opinions as of now.

Did you see the comment Mr.Smith made about Trichocereus cacti being like dogs? If not, be sure to read that!

Kemist


check

Britton & Rose state that there is a “deep horizontal depression above the areole” of T. pachanoi. Backeberg (in the official English translation of the Cactus Lexicon by Lois Glass) it is stated that T. pachanoi has a “transverse depression over the areole.” Now this can easily be confused as indicative of the V-notch on many plants, particularly the “short spined T. peruvianus.” Interestingly enough the standard T. pachanoi in collection does have a depression above the areole, of which I usually describe as being a raised tubercle (a slightly protruding lump) below the areole. Many plants don't show this in cultivation to an extreme degree, but on very large plants which are capable of gaining their optimal diameter do have such “depressions.” These “transverse depressions” appear to be fully synonymous with Backeberg's use of “transverse furrows” for T. puquiensis. In the Cactus Lexicon, and lying between the listings for T. pachanoi and T. puquiensis is the listing for T. peruvianus. In this listing the terminology is different. Backeburg describes the presence of a “V-shaped notch over the areole.” There is no indication that the “transverse depression/furrow” is the same as the V-shaped notch. Now certainly we see very light V-notches on some T. pachanoi, but it is not a prevalent or apparently noteworthy feature of T. pachanoi, while it is on T. peruvianus. Interestingly enough I wouldn't consider a V-notch a prevalent feature of the “T.peruvianus KK242” which I have recently outlined as being T. cuzcoensis (Backberg doesn't list a depression or a V-notch on this species).

by M S Smith

from

http://www.thenook.org/f...ndex.php?showtopic=34667

I won't be able to see any of the links you post that are from the nook because I'm banned there.

Sorry.

This thread is getting very interesting indeed. :b


Much Peace and Sunshine

Swim will try once he gets a chance.

Worth noting as well, is that the 'other alkaloids' could be a mix of anything really, they are definitely active but who knows what could have come over from the limonene and added to the pile of goo he has, he has no way of testing exactly whats in there, whatever it is its soluble in acetone, whereas Mescaline isn't. So obviously SWIMs 50/50 Pachanoi profile could be slightly off.

SWIMs extractions of Pachanoi are limited to Limonene, so he doesnt have a large basis for comparison