"Peruvian Torch"

also known as Trichocereus peruvianus

"How to recognize a short spined T. peruvianus"
by Michael S Smith, posted 2007-12-17 to [http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15744&p=162601]:
Here's a little something I wrote at The Nook (here) regarding the so-called "short spined T. peruvianus" and which I thought might be of interest to those who aren't members. Sorry if a repeat of ideas already familiar. I put it here as I think this "species" is in fact just a form of T. pachanoi.
I've talked about this elsewhere in maybe some more depth, but let me see what I can do to clarify the issue of the "short spined T. peruvianus" again.
The name "short spined T. peruvianus" is a name I made up myself when I got the plant in the following photo from Cactus Corral (CC). At the time CC was trying to get rid of a lot of its larger plants and I believe this particular clone was then sold to California Cactus Center (CCC) who quickly started selling the identical clone, also calling it its original name of simply "T. peruvianus."

When I got the plant it was simply called "T. peruvianus," and because I didn't want to change the species name, but find a way to differentiate it from what was generally called T. peruvianus at the time, I called it the "short spined T. peruvianus." At the time the following sort of plant was the most common one being referred to as T. peruvianus.

Now I've argued quite actively that the plant above isn't T. peruvianus, but rather more along the lines of T. cuzcoensis. Since then plants similar to the one immediately below have been in my estimate properly regarded as T. peruvianus.

So now you can see that this last plant, the proper T. peruvianus, and the one in the first photo, the "short spined T. peruvianus," aren't the same with just a difference in the spines, and it took a bit more thinking for me to figure it all out.
At the same time as the really spiney plant in the second photo was being called T. peruvianus the following plant was consided an accurate representation of T. pachanoi.

Currently though I don't think this plant immediately above, commonly referred to as the "Backeberg clone" or "Predominant cultivar" (both names whose origin resides in K. Trout), is an accurate representation of T. pachanoi as I haven't found it represented at all in the ranges known for T. pachanoi. The plant in the following photos are a good representations of what I believe T. pachanoi to be:
T. pachanoi "Kimnach":

T. pachanoi from Matucana, Peru:

T. pachanoi from Wildflowers of Heaven:

T. pachanoi from South Bay nursery:

From this you can see that T. pachanoi is not the same plant as the so-called "Backeberg clone" in fourth photo, but you can also see that the "proper" T. pachanoi has some natural degree of variation. So in the end I think the plant in the first photo, the so called "short spined T. peruvianus" is nothing other than another variation of T. pachanoi as they are represented in Ecuador and Peru, but since this "short spined" plant is somewhat distinct in its formation, particularly regarding the spine formations, there is probably enough to simply say it is a "clone" and make an attempt to only apply the name to those which are this particular clone. Unfortunately is what we have is a lot of people calling whatever variation of proper Ecuador/Peru T. pachanoi the "short spined T. peruvianus" because they still consider the so-called "Backeberg clone" an accurate representation of T. pachanoi, this when it clearly is not.
I think any plant being called the "short spined T. peruvianus" should....1) be the proper clone, and....2) not be thought of as T. peruvianus at all, but rather as a particular form of the variable T. pachanoi.
I've argued elsewhere that there appears to be a nice intergrade of the quite spineless and relatively non-glaucous T. pachanoi you can find in Ecuador and northern Peru and the long spined very glaucus T. peruvianus of central Peru. I think that mans interests in these plants had carried T. pachanoi south and that it has had ample opportunity to interbreed with central Peru's T. peruvianus to create intergrades. As for these intergrades, well I think we commonly call them T. macrogonus. But since the name T. macrogonus on many points seems invalid (something Trout and I have both agreed up) the most we can do if we want to stick to the names considered acceptatable is try to divy up what degree of spination and degree of glaucusness puts any particular plant either in T. pachanoi or in T. peruvianus. I personally lean more towards maintaining T. peruvianus as being more locallized in central peru and of a particular form while considering T. pachanoi much more variable, from nearly spineless to having spines of some length. Therefore I am more inclined to calling more plants, even if of wide variability, T. pachanoi than T. peruvianus.

Look alikes for the San Pedro cactus (Trichocereus pachanoi)

Be Aware, Thee, for the Trichocereus look-alikes!
This compendium of Trichocereus look-alikes includes many sold at nurseries or online, as well as some rarely seen for sale but which are included nonetheless, in case you see one for sale as a "new, rare, different kind of Trichocereus", most of which have NOT been evaluated for safety or mescaline content.
Click-on or download the photos for better detail. This list will be edited as content as found.

Over thousands of years, the civilizations of the Andes and Chaco regions of South America developed cactus for agricultural, ornamental and medicinal purposes, with various nations holding their own cactus in high esteem for the pilgrims on the road. Many cactus were developed from a common ancestor only a few thousand years ago, so similarities abound, and controversy exists over species classifications.

The defining feature for the San Pedro cactus is in the flowers, which begin as tufts of hair from which sprout stalks which burst open with a flower. The flower is in bloom for only 2 or 3 days. Here's an example from Thee Temple's cactus garden (2013-07), showing a flower about to bloom:


San Pedro Fruit -
(photo shows the final part of the cycle as the red seed pod (fruit) lay open the black seeds to be picked by birds)
San Pedro produces fruit, similar to the red fruit produced by Cereus Peruvianus cactus. It is safe to eat raw, without consequence, and is sweet. San Pedro fruit grows there after the flower is gone, but only if the plant has been pollinated. It is egg shaped, green and bumpy with fine white threads. It will become red colored as the pod ripens. Across the world, San Pedro is grown from clones of a few plants, most of which are not self-fertile. Additionally, many places outside of the Andes and Chaco regions lack the appropriate natural pollinators, including large moths and certain bats.



Trichocereus look-alikes -

Browningia altissima (Gymnocereus Altissimus)


Browningia pilleifera (Gymnanthocereus pilleifer; Gymnanthocereus macracanthus)


Browningia utcubambensis

Browningia hertlingiana
photo originally from [Boga.Ruhr-Uni-Bochum.de] [archive.org]:


Stenocereus (Ritterocereus) Griseus

Heliabravoa (Polaskia) chende

Polaskia chichipe

Seticereus chlorocarpus

Subpilocereus repandus

Stenocereus Griseus

Pachycereus

Myrtillocactus geometrizans

azureocereus spp.

Stetsonia coryne

Borzicactus


Corryocactus brevistylus (Colca Canyon Cactus; Cruz del Condor), alongside some Sancayo fruit of the cactus. (photos from [Cactaceae.be/habitat1.php?taal=en] [archive.today] [archive.org])
 

Pilosocereus

Helianthocereus

Azureocereus

Cereus Peruvianus

Pilosocereus arrabidae (of Brazil)


Pilosocerus quadricostatus (of Brazil)


Cipocereus minensis (of Brazil)

Mescaline extract

Produced with the Trichocereus cacti, such as:
* "San Pedro" (Trichocereus pachanoi)
* "Peruvian Torch" (Trichocereus peruvianus) [link]
* "Bolivian Torch" (Trichocereus bridgesii; Echinopsis lageniformis)
Be Aware, Thee, for the Trichocereus look-alikes, for they may harm thee! [link]
Be Aware, Thee, Mescaline is a psychosis-inducing chemical, though not fatal, and unlawful ingestion is not recommended. The following is provided for medical research purposes only.


"Easy Three-Step Mescaline Citrate"
A relatively benign procedure for non-chemists originally posted 2008-01-13 by "user 04281969" at [http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/7875294]:
With this tek, I wanted to present a simple, straightforward recipe that one could follow as if he were making cookies. If you want to change it up, you're going to have to do some reading. Look through more teks to know how to calculate the amount of acid you need to add.

Materials needed:
1) Peruvian torch or San Pedro cactus powder
2) Lye (use gloves and ventilation)
3) Xylene (use gloves and ventilation)
4) Glass gallon jug with lid or stopper
5) Glass funnel
6) Glass jars
7) Citric acid
8) Long dropper pipette
9) Glass turkey baster
10) Measuring cup and teaspoon
11) Square Pyrex dish and fan for evaporation


Step 1 - Extraction: (Base / Non-Polar)
Mix 1-cup (300 grams) lye into 3 quarts cold water, stirring constantly. Let cool. Pour into jug.
Add 2/3 cup (100 grams) powdered cactus to the jug. Mix well.
Add ~1 quart xylene to the jug. Shake and roll to mix well.
Mix occasionally over the next 24+ hours as the lye breaks down the cactus.
Allow enough time for separation into layers before proceeding to the next step.


Step 2 - Salt: (Acid / Polar)
Prepare acidic solution by diluting ½ teaspoon (2g) citric acid into ½ cup (120ml) distilled water.
Collect top xylene layer from the jug using the baster, putting the xylene into a new jar.
Add approximately one-fifth of the prepared acidic water to the xylene jar.
Put the lid on the xylene jar and shake it up a few times. Wait a couple minutes to settle.
Collect bottom water layer using a long dropper, putting the water into the evaporation dish.
Return xylene to the cactus solution and mix for another 24 hours.
(Optionally, you can add 1 Tbsp lye to the jug after the third extraction.)
Complete 5 extractions over 5 days to use all of the water.


Step 3 - Evaporation:
Pour liquid into a flat-bottomed glass dish under a fan in a low humidity/mild temp environment. After a few days, scrape the residue from the dish and powder using a razor blade. The powder will continue to dry over the next few days. Makes 3-10 doses depending on potency of cactus and dosage desired.

I put the mescaline-containing water from each extraction into a small jar overnight and allowed the crystals to precipitate out. I then removed the old water, and added clean water to the crystals and swirled it around to get them out of the jar. I then collected the crystals in the collection dish and evaporated.



When the precipitated mescaline citrate crystals are collected and separated from the water (like I did this time in order to get good crystals for the pictures), I am sure the dose will be more standardized. The reason the citrate doses can vary is because if you are quick and sloppy with it, you can go heavy on the citric acid to make sure you get all the mescaline out of the cactus that there is to be had, and evaporate it all, not just the crystals that precipitate out. This will leave you with extraneous citric acid and all the extra alkaloid salts. It will not harm you, but some of that is just added filler that will alter dosage.
Because the theory of crystal formation involves the most concentrated compound crystalizing first, the resulting product from this is fairly pure mescaline citrate. To acieve the same purity of the mescaline salt from the typical technique involving total evaporation of all alkaloids, you would need to dissolve and recrystallize, regardless of the acid used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization
BTW, putting the collection jar into the fridge for a couple of hours will really make the crystals start coming out like snowflakes. Here's a picture.

And yes, the picture in the previous post was the pile that came from 100g. There's more alkaloid-rich water that the crystals came out of that I haven't evaporated yet, but that won't look as good I'm sure.
Also worth mention is the fact that the collected crystals dry much more quickly than the whole acid water/mescaline & alkaloid mix. There's no waiting 2-3 days as with evaporating the entire solution. When the water is gone, it is completely dry. And, no thick syrup involved (as can be the case if the acid level is too high).



Words of caution
Any time you open a can of xylol, it's going to stink.
Do it all outside if possible.
And don't underestimate the lye fumes, either. It's best to mix that stuff into quart jars and wait until they cool. (Or wait 3X if you only have one quart jar to mix the lye and water in. You could do it in the jug, but it can actually damage the glass and make it brittle.)


¿Questions? and Answers:
¿Aren't mescaline sulfate and hydrochloride both much more potent than citrat?
Answer: Since citric acid is food safe, this is the safest recipe to release to the public. I bet you could choke down another 50 milligrams. I just feel it's safest for people to make at home by themselves. No chlorine fumes, no sulfuric acid burns, etc.

¿For the salting step, it would probably be easier to freeze that water layer, then pour off the solvent wouldn't it?
Answer: I suppose, but with long (9") pipetes, you can get it done in 5 minutes instead of 5 hours. BTW, just because citrate is a larger molecule, don't think you will end up with less mescaline. You'll just get more product to work with.

¿About how much cactus would be 100g?
Answer: 100 grams is a healthy 2/3 cup.

¿Can evaporation be done indoors?
Answer: Yes you can evaporate indoors, it stinks though.

¿What is your recommended dosage?
Threshold - 124 mg
Light 124 - 248 mg
Common 248 - 372 mg
Strong 372 - 620 mg
Heavy 620 - 868 mg


"Mescaline Dosage"
compiled by Erowid [http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mescaline/mescaline_dose.shtml]:
Every individual reacts differently to every chemical. Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source. Erowid's dosage information is a summary of data gathered from users, research, and other resources and should not be construed as recommendations. Individuals can respond differently to the same dosage. What is safe for one can be deadly for another.

Oral Mescaline HCl Dosages
Threshold 100 mg
Light 100 - 200 mg
Common 200 - 300 mg
Strong 300 - 500 mg
Heavy 500 - 700 mg

Onset : 45 - 60 minutes
Peak : T + 4 hours
Duration : 4 - 8 hours
Normal After Effects : 2 - 4 hours

FORMS of MESCALINE :
If an acid extraction is performed on mescaline containing plant material, different forms of mescaline are produced, depending on the acid used. If hydrochloric acid is used the result is mescaline hydrochloride. If sulphuric acid is used, the result is mescaline sulfate. If citric acid is used, the result is mescaline citrate. And if acetic acid (vinegar) is used, the result is mescaline acetate. Each of these forms has a different molecular weight and therefore dosage...as well as having a different level of solubility in water (the more soluble it is in water, the more mescaline will be extracted from the plant material in an aqueous extraction).

The two most commonly produced synthetic forms of mescaline are mescaline hydrochloride and mescaline sulfate which have very similar dosages.
Mescaline sulfate is 11% heavier than mescaline hydrochloride, meaning it takes 11% more mescaline sulfate by weight to get the same effects as a certain amount of mescaline hydrochloride.
178 mg mescaline HCl = 200 mg mescaline sulfate.

If an acid--base--solvent extraction is done on the plant material the result is freebase mescaline. Freebase mescaline is 15% lighter than mescaline hydrochloride (and 25% lighter than mescaline sulfate), thereby requiring 15% less material by weight for the same dose as mescaline hydrochloride.
However, most (if not all) extractions end with the freebase being turned into a salt. If the extracted mescaline is not converted to a salt and the solvent is evaporated, it can readily form a salt with the carbon dioxide in the air, forming Mescaline carbonate (molecular weight unknown?).

Mescaline is found in many types of cacti, most prominently in peyote (lophophora williamsii), San Pedro (trichocerus pachanoi) and the Peruvian Torch (trichocerus peruvianus). The mescaline content of the various mescaline containing cacti varies greatly between individual samples as well as between species. Following is an estimate of the mescaline contents of these three species.
Although there has long been a myth that Trichocerus peruvianus is "10 times" stronger than T. pachanoi, there is not much data to support this view. Many reports indicate that peruvianus may be somewhat stronger than pachanoi, but this is hotly disputed among cactus experts. See A Look at the Mescaline Content of T. peruvianus and T. pachanoi [http://www.erowid.org/plants/cacti/cacti_article1.shtml].
Lophophora williamsii - 300 mg / 27 g dried material
Trichocerus peruvianus - 300 mg / 15 to 100 grams dried material (.3% - 2.0%)
Trichocerus pachanoi - 300 mg / 15 to 100 grams dried material (.3% - 2.0%)


"Calculating Mescaline Dosages"
by Bo [http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mescaline/mescaline_chemistry1.shtml]
Let's start with the basics:

mescaline (freebase) = C11H17NO3.
C 11 * 12.011
H 17 * 1.008
N 1 * 14.007
O 3 * 15.999
-------
total 211.261 grams per mol mesc

This would be mescaline as the freebase; an oil at STP.
As the stable, solid forms, there are two common ones: the hydrochloride (HCl) salt and the sulfate (H2SO4) salt. It possible that someone has made, say, mescaline acetate, but it's not something I've ever seen. They're on their own.
With the hydrochloride, a single mescaline molecule is paired with one HCl molecule to form the salt.
so, some more masses:

Mescaline Hydrochloride:
mesc 1 * 211.261
H 1 * 1.008
Cl 1 * 35.453
-------
247.722 grams per mole mesc.HCl

Sulfate: In the sulfate, there are two mescalines per H2SO4. To complicate things slightly, the sulfate exists as the dihydrate, meaning there are also two H20s per unit cell. You end up with: (mesc)2.H2SO4.(H2O)2

mesc 2 * 211.261
H 6 * 1.008
S 1 * 32.068
O 6 * 15.999
-------
556.632 grams per mole of (mesc)2.H2SO4.(H2O)2

But you want that in terms of one, not two, mesc molecules. So divide by two:
278.316 grams per mole mesc sulfate [mesc.(H2SO4)1/2.H2O]

Conversion factors based on the above, for equivalent amounts of mescaline:
100 mg mesc sulfate = 89.0 mg mesc hydrochloride = 75.9 mg mesc freebase

So, with the two salt forms, there's only about an 11% difference. If someone gets confused between one and the other, the mix-up is not going to cause major havoc.