• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |

Natural source of 4-HO-MiPT?

Kapitan

Kapitan

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
217
Location
grad school
The wikipedia page for Semecarpus walkeri claims that it is a natural source of miprocin. However, there is no citation. Personally, I find this difficult to believe without some sort of evidence. Does anyone know anything about this?

I'd love to get some seeds if it's true :P
 
as far as i know, nature usually adds methyl groups, and isopropyl groups are unheard of. if someone could show me a reference to prove this otherwise i would be grateful.
 
I'm not a scientist or anything but I don't think it's found in nature... yet?

Who knows what's being "born" right now in the Amazon ?

Wasn't there something like 5MeO-DET which was created in a lab before they discovered it in some animal/plan .. ? Could have been a whole other drug, don't remember anymore.
 
diazepam and nordiazepam were discovered in potatoes, but whether or not they are there from sample contamination (wastewater runoff??) remains to be seen - in any case there are low and barely detectible levels, parts per billion.
 
Methamphetamine (along with nicotine, mescaline and DMT) were all found in the acacia berlandieri plant. Methamphetamine was previously assumed to be synthetic-only.
 
jhoppa said:
Methamphetamine (along with nicotine, mescaline and DMT) were all found in the acacia berlandieri plant. Methamphetamine was previously assumed to be synthetic-only.
Click to expand...

Alledgedly, those findings have not been reproduced, not to say its wrong, but if its not reproducable, its not really scientific proof.

But anyway, those aren't anywhere near chemically related to mipts. And i think its going off tangent to try and rationalize that mipts could be produced naturally because some acacia tested positive ONCE, for meth, mescaline, nicotine, and a bunch of other alkaloids.

Not to say novel, or already synthetically produced psychs, or non psych trypts and phens won't be found. Theres some bromo derivatives of dmt in some sea creatures iirc. And you might be able to get a well trained mycellieum substrate to produce 4-ho-mipt, like what was done with det in that regard. But thats not exactly "natural" per se, i mean yes it is, since we are a part of nature, but without another animals influence (man) the novel 4-subs produced by mycellium substrate doping would not have came into existence, or mabey they would have, but much later in their own evolutionary path.
 
A quick google points to all other mentions of this all being quotes of the wikipedia article. Looks like a rogue edit to me and not something based on any facts. This is why wikipedia is not a good source at all unless there are many legitimate citations, as these kind of edits occur all the time.

What's worse is sometimes these edits can contain fake citations that people don't even bother to check, seeing a few square-bracketed numbers after the quote being enough for them to take it as fact and go around quoting it everywhere, further spreading false information.

In short, seems to be made up information.

That said the idea of 4-HO-MiPT being created in nature is not an impossibility - adding MiPT to psilocybin mushroom substrate could result in just that according to some of Shulgin's research.
 
Jesusgreen said:
That said the idea of 4-HO-MiPT being created in nature is not an impossibility - adding MiPT to psilocybin mushroom substrate could result in just that according to some of Shulgin's research.
Click to expand...

Then the isopropyl group would still be provided artificially. That is not 4-HO-MiPT being created in nature, more like a finished intermediate being passed off as a creation of its own. ;)

It's fun for novelty but it is not like the MiPT is laying up for grabs either.
I would probably do a crude STB extraction from MHRB to enrich substrate before trying it with uncommon tryptamines and having to guess from personal experience whether it worked or not.

About the wikipedia entry, it seems pretty suspicious to me in every way... it's also the only little bit added, seems like a weird isolated detail to provide. Also, this plant is known to be toxic but AFAIK not to be used as a psychedelic so who do you think tested this plant for containing miprocin? Also could not find any other reference whatsoever so I think haox
 
Semantics. You can call mycellium substrate doping with novel "synthetic" tryptamines artificial, but we are doing the same thing as the plants/fungi, just in different ways. Its a different form of synergistic molecular biochemistry using the resources available to us and the fungi, but semantically, isopropyl groups synthesised by man is natural, not artifical or synthetic, relatively.

nature is one interconnected beautiful masterpiece. I usually don't stray into these areas of thought, as theres no proof to back it up, but perhaps it was meant to be ;)
 
I understand what you are trying to say but no. The isopropyl groups in synthetic compounds may be made up of atoms that are originally all natural as you say, but it is not the origin / ingredients but instead the configuration / composition that is what is artificial and to some extent unnatural.
Isopropyl groups probably do exist in nature but maybe not typically in the subtrates of these fungi. If we introduce them, something happens that would not happen if it weren't for man. Doping with DMT, even if it is "synthetic DMT", is not unnatural in this same way because again the recipe or means are not important... semantically DMT is natural because it is found in nature whether we use that natural product or not. Such compounds are already in the natural substrate of the fungi, we only boost it quantitatively.
Anyway that is why I find it a significant difference if the substrate doping is with a natural tryptamine like DMT or plain tryptamine... or with an unnatural one like MiPT. Even if these fungi are ready to 4-hydroxylate foreign tryptamines, that does not prove that this has ever happened before we came along and 'made it so'.
 
I wasn't implying it would have occured (IP functional groups) naturally without human intervention ineviatably. Just that in a way, a purative semantic way, its all natural. Plastics are natural, atom bombs are natural. Artificial insemination is natural. Just trying to pound that fact into peoples head that whatever humans accomplish technologically, in conjunction with the rest of the ecosphere, is technically natural.

Perhaps i could have worded it better, i do understand though that mipts have not been found as biochemical products from organisms other than man, but agnosticism tells me to keep an open mind about the possibility of such, either in prehistory or the future as far as mycellium 4-hydroxylating tryptamines, or its occurance not from fungi (mipts, or whatever novel tryptamines/phens/hell psychadelic molecular families we may have yet to discover.
 
Didn't Terrence McKenna think at one point that our beloved shrooms were planted by aliens as some form of a message? By that logic, 4-HO-DMT producing mushrooms aren't any more natural (in the nature vs nurture sense of the word) than 4-HO-MiPT producing ones and they could exist on our planet today. Maybe lifeforms on another planet don't have DMT, but MiPT or DPT as their omnipresent psychedelic compound, and they're all tripping on miprocin/4-HO-DPT-mushrooms?
 
kidklmx said:
Didn't Terrence McKenna think at one point that our beloved shrooms were planted by aliens as some form of a message? By that logic, 4-HO-DMT producing mushrooms aren't any more natural (in the nature vs nurture sense of the word) than 4-HO-MiPT producing ones and they could exist on our planet today. Maybe lifeforms on another planet don't have DMT, but MiPT or DPT as their omnipresent psychedelic compound, and they're all tripping on miprocin/4-HO-DPT-mushrooms?
Click to expand...

But the universe follows natural laws, and its formation was dictated by evolution, so imho, if in fact fellow lifeforms from another planet "dropped off spores here, or perhaps taking a more scientific approach the spores are the ET lifeforms (spores are hard as fuck, and its been scientifically debated as to the viability they could survive the vacuum/radiation of space travel) and traversed space to reach our planet, its still interconnected, still part of nature. Perhaps nature is as big as you can imagine it, in reality essentially its the universe and the process that created it. So those ET's/spores are just as much a part of nature as a star, planet, quasar, galaxy, nebulae, sentient life-form, or the basic quanta that underlies what cannot be perceived at such scales.

Natural is a purative relative term, and its only limits are that which we choose to put in place. ET's/spores traversing space from another location, is a natural process imho. Confine nature to planet earth, and you can say its artificial/synthetic. I like to leave all options on the table, though, it can make things a bit messy at times. =D

Hell, perhaps our genesis (in terms of cellular evolution on earth) was a natural/synthetic/artificial seeding by another more advanced race, making our concept of nature infinite. depending on how you approach the concept 8o
 
Last edited:
ungelesene_bettlek said:
well, actually this was research done by Jochen Gartz.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction, interesting to know. :)

With regards to the original thread point, seems as Sekio pointed out that the article has now been edited and the point made with no citation has been removed. I doubt the point had any basis in reality, but rather was most likely a hoax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top