Economic Botany

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 353–390 | Cite as

Early peyote research an interdisciplinary study

  • Jan G. Bruhn
  • Bo Holmstedt


  1. 1.

    The first person to draw the attention of the scientific world to peyote was doubtless Dr. J. R. Briggs, and not Mrs. A. B. Nickels as is often stated.

  2. 2.

    The first report of alkaloids in peyote seems to be the laboratory report by F. A. Thompson at Parke-Davis, although Louis Lewin was the first to publish.

  3. 3.

    The variability ofLophophora williamsii and imperfect knowledge of the species laid the foundation for the controversy over botanical names. Only recently have field studies in Mexico indicated that there are two species,Lophophora williamsii andL. diffusa, differing in distribution and chemical characters.Anhalonium lewinii is now referred toL. williamsii.

  4. 4.

    Present and earlier studies of the Querétaro peyote,Lophophora diffusa, show that this species differs considerably in its alkaloid set-up fromL. williamsii. L. diffusa produces predominantly (>90%) phenolic tetrahydroisoquinoline alkaloids (mainly pellotine) and almost no mescaline. This lends support to the earlier postulation of an independent metabolic pathway to pellotine and anhalidine.

  5. 5.

    In our opinion, Heffter’s results withAnhalonium williamsii can be explained if we assume that his plant material was collected in Querétaro and was in factL. diffusa. The alkaloid analysis ofL. diffusa also provides an explanation of other controversial points in the history of peyote research.22 It seems especially appropriate here to recall that Kauder (p. 23) said: “The circumstances seem to me to call for further clarification, which will only be possible when we succeed in obtaining that cactus, which only contains pellotine.”

  6. 6.

    An 80-year old sample of “mescal buttons” has been shown to still contain identifiable alkaloids, most notably mescaline.



Alkaloid Economic Botany Bravo Lewin Mescaline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Agurell, S. 1969. Cactaceae Alkaloids. I. Lloydia32(2): 206–216.Google Scholar
  2. —. and J. Lundström. 1968. Apparent Intermediates in the Biosynthesis of Mescaline and Related Tetrahydroisoquinolines. Chem. Commun. 1968: 1638–1639.Google Scholar
  3. —, J. G. Bruhn, J. Lundström and U. Svensson. 1971. Cactaceae Alkaloids. X. Alkaloids ofTrichocereus species and some other cacti. Lloydia34(2): 183–187.Google Scholar
  4. Altamirano, F. 1905. Memoria acerca de una excursioń botánica al Estado de Querétaro. An. Inst. Méd. Nac. Méx.7: 389–423.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, E. F. 1969. The biogeography, ecology, and taxonomy of Lophophora (Cactaceae). Brittonia21: 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. — and M. S. Stone. 1971. A pollen analysis of Lophophora (Cactaceae). Cact. Succ. Journ. (USA)43: 77–82.Google Scholar
  7. Anonymous. 1892. Memorial and Biographical History of Dallas County, Texas. Illustrated. Containing a History of this Important Section of the great State of Texas, from the Earliest Period of its Occupancy to the Present Time, together with Glimpses of its Future Prospects; with Full-Page Portraits of the Presidents of the United States, and also Full-Page Portraits of some of the most Eminent Men of the County, and Biographical Mention of many of its Pioneers, and also of Prominent Citizens of Today. Lewis Publishing Co., Chicago. 1011 pp.Google Scholar
  8. -. 1959. Peyotl. Bull. Narcotics, U.N. Dept. Social Affairs11: 16–41.Google Scholar
  9. Baird, Violet M. 1972. Nineteenth Century Medical Journalism in Texas: With a Journal Checklist. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc.60(3): 375–381.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bartlett, John Russell. 1860. Dictionary of Americanisms. A Glossary of Words and Phrases Usually Regarded as Peculiar to the United States. Third Edition. Little, Brown and Co., Boston. 524 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Battersby, A. R., R. Binks and R. Huxtable. 1968. Biosynthesis of pellotine. Tetrahedron Letters1968: 6111–6115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bender, G. A. 1968. Rough and Ready Research — 1887 Style. Journal of the History of Medicine23: 159–166.Google Scholar
  13. Beringer, K. 1927.Der Meskalinrausch, seine Geschichte und Erscheinungsweise. Monographien aus dem Gesamtgebiete der Neurologie und Psychiatre 49. Berlin, J. Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Bisset, N. G. and J. D. Phillipson. 1971. The tertiary alkaloids of some Asian species ofStrychnos. J. Pharm. Pharmac.23, Suppl., 244S.Google Scholar
  15. Boke, N. H. and E. F. Anderson. 1970. Structure, development, and taxonomy in the genus Lophophora. Amer. J. Bot.57(5): 569–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bravo H., H. 1931. Contribución al conocimiento de las cactáceas de México. Nota acerca de la histología del peyote, Lophophora williamsii Lemaire. An. Inst. Biol. Méx.2(1): 3–14.Google Scholar
  17. —. 1967. Una revisión del género Lophophora. Cactáceas y Suculentas Mexicanas12: 8–17.Google Scholar
  18. -. 1973. Letter to J. G. Bruhn, March 22.Google Scholar
  19. Briggs, J. R. 1887. “Muscale Buttons” — Physiological Effects — Personal Experience. Medical Register, April 9th, pp. 276–277. A reprint of this article appeared in the Druggists’ Bulletin1(5): 78 (May 1887) under the title: Muscale Buttons — Physiological Action — A Mexican Fruit with Possible Medicinal Virtues.Google Scholar
  20. Brossi, A., F. Schenker, R. Schmidt, R. Banziger and W. Leimgruber. 1966. Synthesen in der Isochinolinreihe. Zur Darstellung 6,7,8-Hydroxy-dimethoxy-substituierter 1,2,3,4-Tetrahydroisochinoline aus 3-Benzyloxy-4,5-dimethoxy-phenäthylamin und Bericht über die Resultate der pharmakologischen Prüfung von Anhalamin, Anhalidin,rac. Anhalonidin undrac. Pellotin. Helv. Chim. Acta49: 403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bruhn, J. G. 1973a. Ethnobotanical Search for Hallucinogenic Cacti. Planta Medica24: 315–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. —. 1973b. Búsqueda Etnobotánica de Cactáceas Alucinógenas. Cactáceas y Suculentas Mexicanas18: 8–13.Google Scholar
  23. — and C. Bruhn. 1973. Alkaloids and Ethnobotany of Mexican Peyote Cacti and Related Species. Econ. Bot.27: 241–251.Google Scholar
  24. Burton, Richard. 1963. The Look of the West, 1860- Across the Plains to California. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. (Originally published in London, 1862).Google Scholar
  25. Coulter, J. M. 1894. Preliminary revision of the North American Species of Cactus, Anhalonium, and Lophophora. Contr. U.S. Nat. Herb.3: 91–132.Google Scholar
  26. Diguet, L. 1907. Le “Peyote” et son usage rituel chez les indiens du Nayarit. Journal de la Societé des Américanistes de Paris, n.s.,4(1): 21–29.Google Scholar
  27. Dixon, W. E. 1899. The physiological action of the alkaloids derived from Anhalonium Lewinii. Journ. Physiol.25: 69–86.Google Scholar
  28. Ellis, H. 1897. A note on the phenomena of mescal intoxication. Lancet1: 1540–1542.Google Scholar
  29. -. 1898. Mescal: A New Artificial Paradise. The Contemporary Review (London) no. 385 (Jan.), pp. 130–141.Google Scholar
  30. Ewell, E. E. 1896. The chemistry of the Cactaceae. Journ. Amer. Chem. Soc.18: 624–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Furst, P. T. 1972. To Find Our Life: Peyote Among the Huichol Indians of Mexico.In: P. Furst, ed.,Flesh of the Gods. Praeger Publishers, New York. pp. 136–184.Google Scholar
  32. Giles, Marie Louise. 1951. The early history of medicine in Dallas, 1841–1900. M.A. Thesis, University of Texas.Google Scholar
  33. Guttmann, A. 1914. Experimentelle Halluzinationem durch Anhalonium Lewinii. Bericht über d. VI Kongress f. exp. Psychol. pp 75–79.Google Scholar
  34. Heffter, A. 1894a. Ueber Pellote. Ein Beitrag zur pharmakologischen Kenntniss der Cacteen. Arch. exp. Path. Pharmakol.34: 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. —. 1894b. Ueber zwei Cacteenalkaloide. Ber. Chem. Ges.27: 2975–2979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. —. 1895. Ueber Pellote. Pharm. Ztg.40(28): 234. (April 6, 1895).Google Scholar
  37. —. 1896a. Ueber Cacteenalkaloide. (II. Mittheilung). Ber. Chem. Ges.29: 216–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. —. 1896b. Ueber Pellotin. Therapeut. Monatsh.10: 327–328.Google Scholar
  39. —. 1896c. Beiträge zur chemischen Kenntnis der Cactaceen. Apoth. Ztg.11: 746.Google Scholar
  40. —. 1898a. Ueber Pellote. Beiträge zur chemischen und pharmakologischen Kenntniss der Cacteen. Zweite Mittheilung. Arch. exp. Path. Pharmakol.40: 385–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. —. 1898b. Ueber Cacteenalkaloide. (III. Mittheilung). Ber. Chem. Ges.31: 1193–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. —. 1901. Ueber Cacteenalkaloide. (IV. Mittheilung). Ber. Chem. Ges.34: 3004–3015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. — and R. Capellmann. 1905. Versuche zur Synthese des Mezcalins. Ber. Chem. Ges.38: 3634–3640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hennings, P. 1888. Eine giftige Kaktee, Anhalonium Lewinii n. sp. Gartenflora37: 410–412.Google Scholar
  45. Holmstedt, B. 1967. Historical Survey.In: Ethnopharmacologic Search for Psychoactive Drugs. U.S. Publish Health Service Publication No. 1645, Washington, D.C. pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
  46. — and G. Liljestrand. 1963.Readings in Pharmacology. Pergamon Press Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  47. - and J. E. Lindgren. 1967. Chemical Constituents and Pharmacology of South American Snuffs.In: Ethnopharmacologic Search for Psychoactive Drugs. U.S. Public Health Service Publication No. 1645, Washington, D.C. pp. 339–373.Google Scholar
  48. —. 1972. Alkaloid analyses of botanical material more than a thousand years old. Etnol. Stud.32: 139–144.Google Scholar
  49. Hutchings, R. H. 1897. Report on the use of pellotine as a sedative and hypnotic. State Hospital Bulletin, Utica,2: 45–48.Google Scholar
  50. Jaensch, W. 1920. Pharmakologische Versuche über die Beziehungen optischer Konstitutionsstigmen zu den Halluzinationen. Zentralbl. f. d. ges. Neurol. u. Psychiatrie23: 119–120.Google Scholar
  51. Jolly, F. 1896a. Ueber die schlafmachende Wirkung des Pellotinum muriaticum. Therapeut. Monatsh.10: 328–329.Google Scholar
  52. —, 1896b. Ueber Pellotin als Schlafmittel. Deut. Med. Wochenschrift22: 375–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kapadia, G. J., N. J. Shah and T. B. Zalucky. 1968. Peyote Alkaloids. II. Anhalotine, Lophotine, and Peyotine, the Quaternary Alkaloids ofLophophora williamsii. J. Pharm. Sci.57: 254–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. —, and M. B. E. Fayez. 1970. Peyote Constituents: Chemistry, Biogenesis, and Biological Effects. J. Pharm. Sci.59: 1699–1727.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. —, and —. 1973. The chemistry of peyote alkaloids. Lloydia36(1): 9–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Kauder, E. 1899. Ueber Alkaloide aus Anhalonium Lewinii. Arch. Pharm.237: 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Khanna, K. L., M. Takido, H. Rosenberg and A. G. Paul. 1970. Biosynthesis of phenolic tetrahydroisoquinoline alkaloids of peyote. Phytochemistry9: 1811–1815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Krayer, O. 1963. Letter to B. Holmstedt.Google Scholar
  59. La Barre, W. 1964.The Peyote Cult. Shoe String Press, Inc., Hamden, Conn. 260 pp.Google Scholar
  60. Lewin, L. 1888a. Ueber Anhalonium Lewinii. Arch. exp. Path. Pharmakol.24: 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. -. 1888b. Anhalonium Lewinii. Therapeutic Gaz. IV, No. 4, April 16.Google Scholar
  62. —. 1894a. Ueber Anhalonium Lewinii und andere Cacteen. Arch. exp. Path. Pharmakol.34: 374–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. -. 1894b. Ueber Anhalonium Lewinii und andere giftige Cacteen. Ber. Deut. Bot. Ges.12: 283–290.Google Scholar
  64. -. 1895. Ueber Anhalonium Lewinii. Pharm. Ztg.40(41): 343. (May 22, 1895).Google Scholar
  65. —. 1964.Phantastica. Narcotic and Stimulating Drugs, Their Use and Abuse. Foreword by Bo Holmstedt. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. 335 pp. (First German edition appeared in 1924).Google Scholar
  66. -. 1929.Gifte und Vergiftungen. 4. Auflage, Stilke, Berlin, 1087 pp.Google Scholar
  67. Lumholtz, C. 1894. Tarahumari dances and plant worship. Scribner’s Magazine16(4): 438–456.Google Scholar
  68. —. 1898. The Huichol Indians of Mexico. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, X: 1–14.Google Scholar
  69. —. 1900. Symbolism of the Huichol Indians. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History,III: 1–228.Google Scholar
  70. Lundström, J. 1970. Biosynthesis of mescaline and 3,4-dimethoxy-phenethylamine inTrichocereus pachanoi. Br. & R. Acta Pharm. Suecica7: 651–666.Google Scholar
  71. —. 1971a. Biosynthetic studies on mescaline and related cactus alkaloids. Acta Pharm. Suecica8: 275–302.Google Scholar
  72. —. 1971b. Biosynthesis of tetrahydroisoquinoline alkaloids inLophophora williamsii (Lem.) Coult. Acta Pharm, Suecica8: 485–496.Google Scholar
  73. —. 1972. Identification of New Peyote Alkaloids; Isomers of the Main Phenolic Tetrahydroisoquinolines. Acta Chem. Scand.26: 1295–1297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. — and S. Agurell. 1967. Thin-layer chromatography of the peyote alkaloids. J. Chromatog.30: 271–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. — and S. Agurell. 1968. Gas chromatography of peyote alkaloids. A new peyote alkaloid. J. Chromatog.36: 105–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. — and S. Agurell. 1971. Biosynthesis of mescaline and tetrahydroisoquinoline alkaloids inLophophora williamsii (Lem.) Coult. Acta Pharm. Suecica8: 261–274.Google Scholar
  77. Merck, E. 1895. Merck, Darmstadt. Bericht über das Jahr 1894. 127 pp.Google Scholar
  78. -. 1897. Merck, Darmstadt. Bericht über das Jahr 1896. 191 pp.Google Scholar
  79. -. 1900. Merck, Darmstadt. Bericht über das Jahr 1899. 185 pp.Google Scholar
  80. Michaëlis, Paul. 1896. Beitrage zur vergleichenden Anatomie der GattungenEchinocactus, Mamillaria undAnhalonium, mit besonderer Betrachtung einzelner Arten der Gattung Anhalonium bezüglich ihrer Zugehörigkeit zu derselben. Inaugural-Dissertation der Friedrich-Alexanders-Universität Erlangen. 39 pp.Google Scholar
  81. Mitchell, S. W. 1896. Remarks on the effects of Anhelonium Lewinii (the Mescal Button). Brit. Med. J., Dec. 5th, 1896, pp. 1625–1629.Google Scholar
  82. Mitich, L. W. 1971. Anna B. Nickels — Pioneer Texas Cactophile. Cact. Succ. Journ. (USA)43: 209–212, 227 and 259-263.Google Scholar
  83. Mogilewa, A. 1903. Ueber die Wirkung einiger Kakteenalkaloide auf das Froschherz. Arch. exp. Path. Pharmakol.49: 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Mooney, J. 1892a. Eating the mescal. Augusta, Ga., Chronicle, Jan. 24, 1892, p. 11, cols. 1–2.Google Scholar
  85. —. 1892b. A Kiowa Mescal Rattle. Am. Anthropologist, o.s.5: 64–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. —. 1896. The Mescal Plant and Ceremony. Therapeutic Gaz.20: 7–11.Google Scholar
  87. Paul, A. G. 1973. Biosynthesis of the peyote alkaloids. Lloydia36(1): 36–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Pilcz, A. 1896. Ueber Pellotin. Wiener Klin. Wochenschrift9: 1121–1122.Google Scholar
  89. Prentiss, D. W. and F. P. Morgan. 1895. Anhalonium Lewinii (Mescal Buttons). A study of the drug, with especial reference to its physiological action upon man, with report of experiments. Therapeutic Gaz.19: 577–585.Google Scholar
  90. — and —. 1896. Therapeutic uses of mescal buttons (Anhalonium Lewinii). Therapeutic Gaz.20: 4–7.Google Scholar
  91. Raffauf, R. F. and E. A. Morris. 1960. Persistence of Alkaloids in Plant Tissue. Science131: 1047.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Robles, C. and J. Gomez Robleda. 1931. Trabajo inicial acerca de la acción fisiológica del clorhidrato de peyotina. An. Inst. Biol. Méx.2(1): 15–46.Google Scholar
  93. Rouhier, A. 1927.La plante qui fait les yeux émerveillés — le peyotl. Doin, Paris. 371 pp.Google Scholar
  94. Rusby, H. H. 1894. Muscale Buttons. Bull. Pharm.8: 306.Google Scholar
  95. Safford, W. E. 1915. An Aztec Narcotic. Journ. Hered.6: 291–311.Google Scholar
  96. Schultes, R. E. 1937a. Peyote and plants used in the peyote ceremony. Bot. Mus. Leafl. Harvard Univ.4(8): 129–152.Google Scholar
  97. —. 1937b. Peyote (Lophophora williamsii) and plants confused with it. Bot. Mus. Leafl. Harvard Univ.5(5): 61–88.Google Scholar
  98. —. 1972a. Ilex Guayusa from 500 A.D. to the present. Etnol. Stud.32: 115–138.Google Scholar
  99. —. 1972b. An Overview of Hallucinogens in the Western Hemisphere.In: P. Furst, ed.,Flesh of the Gods. Praeger Publishers, New York. pp. 3–54.Google Scholar
  100. —, B. Holmstedt and J. E. Lindgren. 1969. De Plantis Toxicariis e Mundo Novo Tropicale Commentationes III. Phytochemical Examination of Spruce’s Original Collection of Banisteriopsis Caapi. Bot. Mus. Leafl. Harvard Univ.22(4): 121–132.Google Scholar
  101. Schumann, K. 1895. Uber giftige Kakteen. Ber. Pharm. Ges.5: 103–110. An abstract of this paper was published in Pharm. Ztg.40(21): 175. (March 13, 1895).Google Scholar
  102. —. 1898. Die Gattung Ariocarpus (Anhalonium). Bot. Jahrb.24: 541–567.Google Scholar
  103. —. 1903.Gesamtbeschreibung der Kakteen (Monographia Cactacearum). Zweite Auflage, Verlag von J. Neumann, Neudamm.Google Scholar
  104. Shulgin, A. T. 1973. Mescaline: The chemistry and pharmacology of its analogs. Lloydia36(1): 46–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Slotkin, J. S. 1955. Peyotism, 1521–1891. Am. Anthropol.57: 202–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Späth, E. 1919. Über dieAnhalonium — Alkaloide. I. Anhalin und Mezcalin. Monatsh. Chem.40: 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. —. 1922. Über die Anhaloniumalkaloide. V. Die Synthese des Anhalonidins und des Pellotins. Monatsh. Chem.43: 477–484.Google Scholar
  108. Todd, J. S. 1969. Thin-layer Chromatography Analysis of Mexican Populations ofLophophora (Cactaceae). Lloydia32: 395–398.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Wasson, V. P. and R. G. Wasson. 1957. Mushrooms Russia and History. New York: Pantheon Books. 2 vols., 435 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan G. Bruhn
    • 1
  • Bo Holmstedt
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PharmacognosyUniversity of Uppsala at the Biomedical CenterUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of ToxicologySwedish Medical Research Council, Karolinska InstituteStockholm 60Sweden

Personalised recommendations