|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Non-psychoactive alkaloids
- 3 Missing phrase
- 4 Distribution
- 5 The picture is not good.
- 6 Etymology
- 7 San Pedro growing
- 8 Book citation required
- 9 Added baby San Pedro picture
- 10 Can anyone make the unsourced thing leave
- 11 A Mistake MAYBE?
- 12 Soon to be delegalized in Poland
- 13 Hordenine antibacterial?
I'll come back to do more cultivation stuff, traditional use, and images...
Quote from the beginning of the Chemistry section:
"San Pedro contains a number of psychoactive alkaloids, including the well-studied chemical mescaline (0.11 - 2.3%), and also 3,4-dimethoxyphenethylamine..."
And it goes on to list a number of other phenethylamines. I'm not sure about the rest, but I do know that this first item in the list -- 3,4-dimethoxyphenethylamine (aka DMPEA) -- is in fact *not* psychoactive. The fact that it is indeed present in San Pedro cactus is worth mentioning, but I think it should be pointed out which of these are psychoactive and which are not. I hesitate to edit this myself because, beyond DMPEA, I don't know anything about the psychoactivity of the other alkaloids listed. -- Stereoisomer 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The second sentence of the Cultivation section seems to be missing its ending. — Pekinensis 14:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
The CITES Cactaceae Checklist lists E. (T.) pachanoi from Peru and Ecuador. From where comes the claim that it also grows in Bolivia and Chile? Jgrahn 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Anderson also gives Ecuador and Peru as the distribution area, Backeberg only mentions Ecuador. I'll remove Bolivia and Chile as the information seems to be unsubstantiated. Hvidberg 19:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The picture is not good.
That picture of a T.Pachanoi is not representative of what really that cacti is. That pic is from a cacti that haven't received enough sunlight. The widht and the spined-ribs development is not like a real T.Pachanoi growing under the sun in a proper place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) .
- So... do you have a better photo? —Keenan Pepper 15:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I work as a gardener at a college in California which boasts a world-renowned cactus garden that includes some nice ground-planted San Pedro cacti. Out of curiosity, I asked the man who had designed and planted the garden about the history and preparation of the San Pedro. The current article covers almost everything he said, but one nice fact he passed onto me was the reason for its name; apparently the ancients found its effects so profound, tales and methods of cultivation were passed down through many generations, and was eventually dubbed "San Pedro," or in English, "St. Peter," because it was, like the biblical figure, thought to "hold the keys to heaven." I haven't found any formal references to verify this claim, but it seems like a valid, logical assertion. I am an inexperienced Wikipedia contributer, so instruction and input would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dj8man11 (talk • contribs) .
- I haven't found any formal references to verify this claim... That's a serious problem. Information that is not verifiable should not be added. All I can tell you is to keep looking. —Keenan Pepper 04:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I've read this on erowid... 23:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
San Pedro growing
...I am interested where to get that splenditly amazing cacti of San Pedro?...how to grow cactis from seed?...etc...each info will be helpfull...thank You. Alja —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
-I found a pair at a Loews Hardware garden center. They shouldn't be hard to find, to the best of my knowledge they're completely unregulated throughout the United States (preparations are a different story though). I'm not too sure about the law elsewhere... Sa9097 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC).
Book citation required
I have been searching for the title, "Michael S. Smith, Narcotic and Hallucinogenic Cacti of the New World (Better Days Publishing, 2000)", as cited as a reference for this article. Although it appears that the book might exist, I have not been able to locate it at any seller, or even find any definitive proof of its existence. Could someone either fix this, or at least provide an ISBN? Wowbobwow12 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Added baby San Pedro picture
I have added a picture of my baby San Pedro cactus in the San Pedro article for the very same reason I did so in the Peyote article. The reason is that both articles were missing new born pictures of both species of cacti. While Peyote has 3 or 4 pictures of developed cacti, the San Pedro only has one fully grown picture. Adam 19:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone make the unsourced thing leave
The sources don't appear because of it, but I cannot remove it...Wiki wiki1 08:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
A Mistake MAYBE?
"Echinopsis pachanoi contains hordenine and ". . .it has been shown that"
Edit - Must remain in a neutral point of view. Its likely someone changed this article to rid of the word "mesceline."
The reason i put this in talk is because i have no idea how to edit history correctly and could not erase/fix this error.
Soon to be delegalized in Poland
This substance is on the list of 18(?) Substances soon to be delegalized (criminalized) in Poland:
Argyreia nervosa - Hawaiian Baby Woodrose, Banisteriopsis caapi - Ayhuasca, Calea zacatechichi - Dream Herb, Catha edulis - Khat, Echinopsis pachanoi - San Pedro (cactus), Piper methysticum - Kava Kava, Leonotis leonurus - Wild Dagga, Mimosa tenuiflora - Jurema, Mitragyna speciosa - Kratom, Nymphaea caerulea, Peganum harmala, Psychotria viridis, Rivea corymbosa, Salvia divinorum, Tabernanthe iboga - Iboga, Trichocereus peruvianus, Benzylpiperazine - BZP, JWH-018 - Spice
The source for this claim strikes me as problematic. It appears to have been written by an unnamed "analytical chemist" on his / her personal website. It is not a primary source and does not cite any specific studies to substantiate the claim, merely alluding to "studies from the 1960's." Does anyone know of a more reliable / detailed source for this statement? CBHoncho (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)