Talk:Echinopsis lageniformis/Archives/2020/May

untitled
This article is rife with errors, particularly in terms of citation. Every statement attributed to the article "MESCALINE HALLUCINATIONS IN ARTISTS" is totally unrelated. MESCALINE HALLUCINATIONS IN ARTISTS never even mentions the word cactus let alone T. bridgesii! I am removing that source as it is just filler. Also there is no evidence given as to why the cactus of the four winds would be a T. bridgesii and so I am moving that to the trichocerus entry. --Valerophenone (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Several problems... First, the name achuma is a generic term in the Andes for all the psychedelic Trichocereus species, not just T. bridgesii. Second... "The Beast"? Who the hell calls it that? I've been researching these plants for a decade or so and this is the first time I've ever heard that silly name. Maybe that's a nickname used by some small group of friends of whoever created this article, but it hardly seems encyclopedic knowledge. Lastly the claims that its the most magical and least used of the species seems... well, wrong. It's quite widely used in its native environment, and as for most magical, there is a lot of variability and chemical analysis don't back up the notion that this species is consistently higher in active alkaloids than pachanoi or peruvianus. Murple 07:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The picture seen in the table on the right is of my own plant. No source required.--Sennaista 17:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)