okay so check this out. I am brewing a 10g test dose of this sopposed Banisteriopsis Muricata "red ayahuasca" vine. I want to star low with vines of unknown potentcy and alkaloid profile, and some others have told me this vine is a couple times stronger than B.caapi..so that is why just 10g..

Anyway, look at the color in these pics..ints been brewing for an hour now..never seen this color with B.caapi ever..this brew is actaully reddish orange..sure caapi can have a reddish tint sometimes but always reddish brown..never bright like this from my experience..this is just different from B.caapi..makes sense shamans would brew this stuff and call it red ayahuasca..

its actually gotten an ever deeper red to it now that it has been brewing a bit longer and reduced somewhat..it's getting a blood red tint to it.

This is fascinating! Thanks for starting this discussion here.

I read the thread over @ the aya forums and this one here and it's all a a bit murky and convoluted and spread out, so I just kinda want to do a knowledge check and see if we can try and clarify all this a bit.

Wikipedia says:


The var. caupuri has big knots in the stems that make it very distinguishable. I haven't ever seen this one offered by vendors until now.


Now I assume the caapi we are all familiar with that all the vendors have been carrying for all these years is the var. tukunaka and supposedly this comes in a variety of "colors".

As I understand it all these various colors of ayahuasca are classified as Banisteriopsis caapi var. tukunaka:

White - cura ayahuasca/ayahuasca blanca - used for healing and magic.

Black - trueno ayahuasca/ayahuasca negra - very strong, causes intense purging.

Red - ayahuasca colorada - used by the shamans for healing others.

Yellow - ayahuasca cielo/ayahuasca amarilla - The most common and widely used variety, good for beginners.

Cielo - heavenly ayahuasca/sky ayahausca - Sometimes listed to be the same as yellow ayahuasca, but as I understand it the true cielo is regarded to be quite a bit stronger than the common yellow ayahuasca.

Ourinhos - little gold - This is the var the Brazilian ayahuasca churches use. This one is also sometimes called yellow ayahuasca.

So that covers our familiar b. caapi ayahuasca.

---

It seems we now have access to a few other species also called by ayahuasca:

Alicia anisopetala - black ayahuasca/oco yage/water ayahuasca - This plant contains the power in the vine and the light in the leaves. This is the likely candidate for the plants those of us who purchased the mislabeled "Chaliponga" have.

Alicia macrodisca - This is the other possible candidate for our plants. This plant also contains the power in the vine and the light in the leaves?

Banisteriopsis muricata - red ayahuasca- This one is very very similar to b. caapi but has a bit more red color and creates a much more red/orange brew. This contains the power in the vine and light in the leaves.

Tetrapteris methystica - griss ayahuasca - I know next to nothing about this one. Wikipedia says its psychoactive and the alkaloids are thought to be closely related to B. caapi.

---

Regarding Chaliponga:

It seems the "Diplopterys cabrerana" that we all seek as the "true" Chaliponga is the one they call "Ushpa Chaqui". Although the A. anisopetala has been sold and used successfully as "chaliponga" many times before.

Does anyone know what other plants have been used/sold as chaliponga?

---

Does that all sound about right? Please let me know if there are any errors or holes in my understanding here. I'm just trying to get this all straightened out in my own mind.

-Namaste


P.S. - It seems we are just barely starting to scratch at the surface of the rabbit hole that is ayahuasca. Looks like there is lot more work to be done in this area.



Less than 1% of plants in the Amazon have been studied for possible medical effects and medicinal applications.

^well, some people think that the red, black colors some people sell B.caapi under are all just bs-that there is no Banisteriopsis caapi vr. tukanaka other than yellow and cielo..and that the true red is muricata..some say muricata is called black or ayahuasca negra etc..grey ayahausca is apparently tetrapteris..but this is all just what others in SA have said..I cant say really.

One more thing.."caapi" does not only refer to "banisteriopsis caapi"..tetrapteris methystica for instance is apparently known as "painted caapi" to some tribes.."caapi" is a name that some tribes call a few different vines not only B.caai..it just turned out that Shulted was shown B.caap, that the natives called "caapi" and so that vine was designated as Banisteriopsis Caapi.

also, I am now brewing up another small batch of the black vine I have here I assume is alicia(becometheother thinks it could be black muricata though)..

anway it is a totally different color from the red muricata vine I have here..the brew from this black vine is yellow..more yellow than B.caap..B.caapi is a brownich yellow..this is a lighter yellow..

I will take pics soon.

Okay here are some pics of the black vine that I am assuming here is alicia..
you can see how the color here is much more similar to banisteriopsis caapi, but it is a lighter yellow than caapi is I think..

There is alot of steam comming off the brew in the photos, sorry..kinda looks like spirits comming out of the tea..

Thanks for your help in getting this all figured out Jamie! Looking forward to hearing your results working with these new teachers.

As far as i can tell dreamoar, yes we are on the same page! Caupuri is b. cappi it is just knotted. It would be interesting to know if this variety is anything noteworthy, or if it is for all practical purposes similiar to smooth b. cappi. So far we dont know.

As jamie said, we think all this red, white, black, varieties of b. cappi are at least somewhat marketing ploys. We think they are all b. cappi, and contain similair levels of harmalas. Not much stake is to be put into these names of red black and yellow. Because one areas red ayahuasca may be another areas yellow ayahuasca and so on and so forth. I personally think that these names are given by the vendors or the person who supplies the vendors and have no stake in reality.

But be careful with the black though, it seems some of the black on the market really is significantly more potent in harmalas than standard cielo cappi.

The b. muricatas and alecia anisopetala are the ones we are interested in now and likely to be the true "red" and "black" ayahuasca.
Both b. muricata and alecia anisopetala supposdly contain harmala in the vine and dmt in the leaf.

On kiwiboancayas website he offers two varieties b. muricata red and black, as well as b. muricata leaf (it doesnt specify red or black) and also alecia vine and leaf.

I personally ingested a strong dose of the alecia and i do beleive strongly that it contains both power and light!


What you say of chaliponga is also true. Right now it looks like the most likely canidate is the Ushpa Chaqui for the leaf commonly sold on many vendors websites as chaliponga. It is not a vine like ayahuasca but is a shrub like p. viridis. The leaves are long and thin, shiny, and are brittle when dry. This is consistent with samples of "chaliponga" leaf i have obtained in the past. It does indeed seem this plant is classified as d. cab

Alecia anisopetla or black ayahuasca or oco-yage, is also very commonly sold as chaliponga, the mature leaves are also long and thin. But they DO NOT GET BRITTLE on drying but instead are LEATHERY AND HAIRY. this is a standout trait that is very easy to distinguish, because none of the other leaves in question have this property, but instead are all shiny and smooth not leathery and hariy.

b. muricata leaves may also be sold as chaliponga leaves, we dont know much on that one.

b. muricata can have the varieties of black red and white. I suspect this refers to the colors of the vines and they are all essentially similiar, that is merely a guess though, i dont have all the muricatas.

So there i think were mostly on the same page with things...

None of this is written in stone yet, and if our understandings are flawed we will be happy to remedy them. But in my mind this at least starts the process of wading through the vast array of confusing and innacurate information, in order to get some solid un-waverying discoveries about the plants in question.

I for one think this is really cool, and this is all stuff ayahuasca is just begging for us to discover.
It truly is WIDE OPEN! as quoted above less then 1% of the rainforests planst have been properly investigated. What are we waitin for?

Who wants to help me compile the database and make a chart with pretty pictures??
With comprehensive pictures, identifications, names, chemical anylasis, i think it would be pretty hard for this confusion to last much longer......

Cheers nexus and thanks for everyones input

Ill get back to this but one thing, kiwi doesnt sell red and black b. muricata, they only sell red, at least now.. Or am I missing something?

I dont think i made it clear enough that i think the plant identified as d. cabrerana is this Ushpa Chaqui we are talking about.

i think this because

-Chaliponga leaves are often sold under the name d. cabrerana

-most chaliponga leaves on the market DO NOT resemble cappi and muricata leaves because the cappi leaves are broad and less symetrical, whereas these mystery leaves are long and thin, consistant with most chali on the market.

-all pictures of d. cab that i have looked at show a shrub, not a vine. if you look at pictures of ushpa chaqui, it is a small shrubby bush and the pictures of the bush and leaves look exactly like the pictures of the leaf and bush of d. cabrerana.


The other identification commonly used for chaliponga is banisteriopsis rusbyana. I think this is actually refering to either the alecia anisopetala, or the b. muricata, because as we can tell by the name, b. rusbyana, is a vine in the same family as b. cappi the traditional ayahuasca vine, like alecia and muricata.

I mean that makes pretty good sense doesnt it? Clearly different plants are being sold as chaliponga!

Point of order!!!

Neither of these varieties are scientifically accepted

Granted, that doesn't necessarily change the validity of observations regarding multiple "varieties" of B. caapi...but there are no published varieties of B. caapi. For all we know they could be subspecies or even different species.


Which, as noted above, is the same plant as D. cabrerana and as a synonym, should not be used if we wish to minimize confusion.

This is my understanding as well. I have never seen black muricata for sale on the kiwi site ever. The only actual dry muricata vine for brewing I have seen there is called "red ayahuasca"..they do have seeds called Banisteriopsis Muricata(white) though..or at least they did, but someone else told me that was a mis-ID..and I think he removed them..

edit...Okay so I double checked..there is nothing on the kiwi site called Banisteriopsis Muricata(black)..the only muricata they have is seeds just labled B.Muricata, live plants called B.Muricata and then dry vine called B.Muricata(red ayahuasca).

The only color listed for muricata on the kiwi site is red.

Well I think it is obvious they are at the very least 2 different varieties and probly will be at some point labled 2 different species of B.caapi..I mean this is all semantics really..look at them..caupuri is definatly NOT tukanaka! 2 totally different vines!

I thought that the chaliponga we are talking about(because there are many chalipongas) has been classified as banisteriopsis rusbyana and that the diploterys cabrerana classification has been thrown out..am I wrong here?

First, please forgive the excessive quotes...I did my best to combine simplified definitions with more technical ones from wikipedia and elsewhere to break down some of the taxonomic concepts we are getting into in this discussion. Hope it's not too boring, that being said...

Yes, the tukanaka is clearly not caupuri...but that does not resolve the systematics of these two plants. Do we have Banisteriopsis caapi var. tukanaka and Banisteriopsis caapi var. caupuri? Or do we have B. caapi ssp. tukanaka and B. caapi ssp. caupuri? Or do we really have something like B. caupuri and B. tukanaka?





The thing is...if there are really two varieties of caapi, one of them must be the typical variety or B. caapi var. caapi (or, in the case of subspecies, B. caapi ssp. caapi). This is why I brought up the issue in my first post in this thread...these supposed varieties have never been botanically described...according to the present botanical literature, they do not exist. Because of this, we do not know what these plants are as far as relationship to each other, or even the species.

This is actually something that I hope to work on in the next couple of months, as my boss has agreed to help look through vouchered specimens in at least one herbarium to see where exactly these two plants might fall (depending on what we find and how much time I have in DC when I drop by in June, I may try to swing by the Smithsonian and look at additional vouchers). I'm also in the process of writing up a letter to D. Mckenna (as he is the one credited with describing these two varieties at a conference in 1996) to see what, if any, light he can shed on this.



Banisteriopsis rusbyana is not an accepted name. I thought it was a nomenclatural synonym for the accepted name Diplopterys cabrerana...but...this discussion has proven me (and wikipedia as well as Ratsche and others) incorrect! Banisteriopsis rusbyana is, in fact, a nomenclatural synonym for Diplopterys longialata. This most likely results from the 2006 revisions to Banisteriopsis and Diplopterys I mentioned earlier, which can be found in the paper 'Expansion of Diplopterys at the Expense of Banisteriopsis (Malpighiaceae)'. Engaging with this nomenclature and taxonomy in a coherent and cohesive manner is going to be a major challenge for a number of reasons, but I think it is an endeavor well worth undertaking.

^interesting abotu the diploterys..

"Or do we really have something like B. caupuri and B. tukanaka?"

This is what I think. I meant 2 different species of banisteriopsis..not 2 different species of B.caapi..I am not a botanist though..just makes sense to me they are 2 different species..what is a "variety" anyway..that makes little sense to me. How different does it have to be to be a different species instead of just different variety?

A subspecies is an individual division within a species, meaning that the members of the subspecies are individual enough that they cannot be lumped together, but they are not so distinct that they are entirely different species.

So, take a flower...let's call it Flower x. Flower x occurs in valleys, but it is related to Flower y which occurs in the mountains. There are some morphological differences between the two species of flower, but their main distinguishing feature is the geographic regions in which they occur. These two species are reproductionally isolated from each other, meaning that, while they can interbreed in theory, they don't due to geographical barriers. As such, evolutionarily, each species develops different attributes to fit its ecological niche.

Ok, so then when we look in the valley (which happens to be split by a river) at Flower x, we find that there are two flower colors present, one on each side of the river, one red and one yellow. So we establish that there are two subspecies or varieties (these terms are disputed depending on which botanist you talk to, although many put variety below subspecies).

So, as soon as we recognize two varieties, one will automatically take on the name of the 'typical subspecies/variety' or Flower x ssp. x and we can name the other whatever we want, say Flower x. ssp. yellow. As soon as we name Flower x ssp. yellow, the typical variety is 'automatically' named as there must be at least two subpsecies/varieties and one of them must be the typical. Alternatively, if we named the red one Flower x ssp. red, then the yellow phenotype would be named Flower x ssp. x.

This is why I want to look at the vouchered specimens and contact D. Mckenna. Not only did he never publish the varietal names...I have been unable to find any writing of his on these two varieties. If we find that these two alleged 'varieties' are occurring in geographically disjunct areas, then we have good evidence that (as you believe) these are two different Banisteriopsis species. If, however we find them in the same general geographic areas (but perhaps one likes shade and the other more sun, in addition to their morphological differences) it's more likely (in my far from professional opinion) that they are subspecies or varieties.

Wow good stuff here guys.

I would like to add about the chaliponga if i wasnt clear enough...

Int it possible that diplopteries cabrerana is the ushi chaspi? Ive seen many pictures of plants labeled "Diplopteries cabrerana" and its always a bush.

The point i am trying to make here is that B. rusbyana (whether that is sceintfically accepted or not) perhaps refers to one of the plants known as chaliponga (the one that resembles an ayahuasca vine), while diplopteies cabrerana perhaps refers to the same thing as Ushpa Chaqui, not a vine but a small bush, (basically a plant unrelated to ayahuasca vines, perhaps more closely related to shrubls like psychotria viridis?)


Either way I am exited to see interest in these plants, and a really do hope we can come together and complile some sort of database and identification and information chart. Anyone want to work together on that?

As a few have said, figuring all this out would be a workload, but if the load is shared it will be easy, and extremely gratifying to progress our understanding of ayahuasca. Let me know who is interested!

B. rusbyana = Diplopterys longialata

I know it seems like I'm being petty, but I promise you, I'm just trying to minimize confusion by keeping our Latin nomenclature as accurate as possible.

BTO, your conjecture with regards to the two plants fits in very nicely in light of what is now revealed to be a misapplied synonym (B. rusbyana ≠ D. cabrerana) and based on your observations of the morphology. This misapplication could easily account for two plants being viewed (by many) under one indigenous name. If I may re-state your conjecture with tying indigenous names to Latin ones...

D. cabrerana = ushi chaspi
D. longialata = chaliponga

yes?

Yeah thats right snozz! Thats pretty much exactly what i was trying to say, about the misaplied synonym, and thats what i think led to alot of this confusion.

Thank you for your clear consise interperitation snozz.

As far as I know alfonzo is working on finding this shi chaspi, also the individual who sells plants as "chaliponga dream" who posts on the ayahuasca forum can find the plant and he sells the leaves.

Im getting a few kinds i dont have, Caupuri and Griss, the new ones on his site.


So many ayahuascas.... So little time!

The black vine I just brewed (also Kiwi's Alicia) was the same brilliant gold as the "ourinhos " caapi I got from Icaros a while back. Interestingly enough, when the ourinhos was tlc'd it was shown to have harmine and some weird beta carboline that was not one of the usual suspects. I'll be very interested to see what the mass spectrometer shows it to be.

I just started to brew Kiwi's yellow B. caapi...it's a much deeper/darker yellow/orange than the Alicia or the ourinhos.