I'm sorry, I did not communicate my statement as precisely as I should have. My statement was too broad and you rightly contradicted it. As this thread was looking at Trichocereus species and identifying them, I made that statement specifically in regards to the small number of studies done into the alkaloids present and their concentrations in Trichocereus species without adequately expressing it.
Quote:
Quote:
Certainly not enough to come close to being able to identify the species of a cactus by knowing what alkaloids are present and what concentrations they are in.
more unadulterated bullshit.
Try telling me that L williamsii has the same alkaloids as L diffusa.
|
Those two species have a significantly different chemical make up and there has also been a lot of study into Lophophora williamsii. The same can not be said of Trichocereus species. Take a look at this page:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cacti/c...trichoce.shtml. The alkaloids shown to be present and their concentrations (when shown) are based on a limited number of studies and are therefore in my opinion not reliable enough to be able to accurately identify a cactus by knowing it's alkaloid content.
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, alkaloid concentrations vary greatly between individuals within the same species of cactus.
That is a given, considering the different growing conditions including climate, nutrients, soils and amount of available sunlight.
|
So, if there is variation, how can you trust the few sources of data on the chemical constituents of Trichocereus pachanoi and other Trichocerus sp. to create the chemical boundaries needed to then identify a cactus species through chemical analysis?
Quote:
On pages 220-221 Trout is talking about Juuls Giant's, where he goes on to say there are at least two forms in cultivation. Further, he states that GC-MS (gas chromatography-mass spectrometry) tests by Shulgin showed them to be distinct from each other chemically even though the original source was believed to be identical.
from Shulgin's GC-MS work:
Juuls Giant (A):
unknown isoquinoline was 90%
mescaline less than 10%
minor isoquinoline (not specified)
3 trace isoquinolines (not identified)
Juuls Giant (JM):
major alkaloid is an unknown compound
mescaline does not appear to be present
also observed some sort of phenylethanol
|
The chromatographic spectrum analysis was not used to identify the species of the cactus. In fact, both samples were from the same species and, as you point out, were extremely closely related. This only vindicates my point that chemical variation even within one species makes chemical analysis an unreliable method for identifying cactus species.
Furthermore, seeing as Trichocereus species can easily become hybrids, the publications analysing chemical make up of one species could not be compared with a chemical analysis of a potential hybrid in order to identify it. The published data would not be relevant to the many possible hybrid combinations that have not yet been analysed. Also, hybrid Trichocereus species are commonly and widely circulated.