Flower buds of Epiphyllum species as food.

 I wanted to grow various Hylocereus for their valued edible unopened flowers (1) which are similar to Okra (2) but they are difficult to grow here in temperate Wellington, New Zealand. I managed to get one to survive the winter but it has not grown much at all. So I decided to try the related and similar Epiphyllum flower as a substitute since it grows easily outdoors here. The Cactus Cook Book (3) recommends Epiphyllum flower petals candied, although this is the only reference I could find to Epiphyllum flowers in general being edible aside from the well known use of opened Epiphyllum oxypetalum flowers in soups in Asia (4). 

So far I've tried unopened flower buds, including flower stems, of Epiphyllum cooperi and Epiphyllum ackermannii* (possibly actually Disocactus x hybridus which is often incorrectly called ackermannii in trade (5)). Both are bland in flavor, reasonably thick, firm, chewy and, like Hylocereus flowers (5), slightly mucilagenous when eaten raw. The flower base is rather like cucumber in texture but not as tasty. Cooked (as is recommended for Hylocereus) they are a bit tastier, like mild brussels sprouts, they become more mucilagenous the longer they are cooked, like Okra to which Hylocereus flowers are often likened. I haven't tried Hylocereus flowers so I don't know how similar they are but I find Epiphyllum a good addition to my edible garden because of their novel texture, ease of cultivation and epiphytic habit, occupying a niche that might not be otherwise used for food production. 

It looks like it may be best to stick to sampling Epiphyllum species only for food and not so called "Epiphyllum hybrids" which are not necessarily bred exclusively from Epiphyllum species despite the misleading name (7) (that would be any plant called "Epiphyllum" followed by a pretty name like "Starlight" or "Golden Beauty" rather than a species name). "Epiphyllum hybrids" may include Selenicereus parentage (7), the flowers of Selenicereus grandiflorus are unusual among cacti for being medicinal and toxic in excess (8). I don't know if it has been used in "Epiphyllum hybrids" but probably best to avoid them unless parentage is well established, they were bred for looking at not eating. 

It is however likely the reference to Epiphyllum flowers in general as edible in the Cactus Cook Book (2) is meant to include "Epiphyllum Hybrids" as it also recommends "any" cactus flower, they may be perfectly safe, I can find no record of any kind of Epiphyllum being toxic. 

If you're worried about unknown toxicity stick to Epiphyllum oxypetalum flowers as they have had widespread long-term use as food. 

1) Edible Medicinal and Non-medicinal Plants. Vol 7, Flowers, Page 45. T.K Lim.  2014.

2) https://www.iplantz.com/plant/1706/hylocereus-triangularis/

3) The Cactus Cook Book. Page 94. J L Tate. 1991.

3) Food Plants of China. Page 567. S Hu. 2005.

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disocactus_ackermannii

6) http://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACTI/Family/Cactaceae/7429/Hylocereus_undatus

7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphyllum_hybrid

8) Encyclopedia of Herbs & Their Uses. D Bown. 1995.

* There is an interesting and apparently unique reference to the Epiphyllum "Ackermanni Group", "mostly hybrids with a Nopalxochia" being grown in fields for their fruit in Mexico (Pg 57. Cactus Culture. Based on Biology. Franz Buxbaum 1958). 

 

Anti-stress may be anti-hierarchy

 "We now see that the process of rank allocation" (among primates) "especially dominance contests, encourage the upward movement of those group members most most able to withstand stress and best equipped to impose stress on others, while those with the most difficulty handling stress, or the least interested in stressing others, move downward. Thus there is a natural sorting that places individuals who are comfortable with stress near the top of the hierarchy and those who are "nervous" at the bottom".

-Allan Mazur. Biosociology of Dominance and Deference. Pg 87. 2005.

It is interesting that the relatively egalitarian Semai people of rainforest Malaysia have long viewed causing stress as a form of unacceptable violence (or at least they may be highly sensitive to stress). The violent effects of stress have much more recently been confirmed by modern science (Robert Dentan. Overwhelming Terror. Love, fear, peace and violence among Semai of Malaysia. Pg 138. 2008). 

It may be this "taboo" on causing stress partly explains the relative equality found in Semai society, hierarchy may simply, and unintentionally, be prevented from developing in the process of avoiding stress (Robert Dentan & David Nicholls. Stress, equality and peacability among east Semai. A preliminary account. Paper presented at Annual meeting of America Anthropological Association, Montreal, Nov 2011). Although multiple factors are probably involved in maintaining their equality, perhaps most notably they appear to "outsource" hierarchical roles such as "law and order" and "boss" to the supernatural (as reported in similar "egalitarian" societies by Kirk Endicott in Peaceful Foragers: The Significance of the Batek and Moriori for the question of Innate Human Violence. War, Peace and Human Nature. Ed D Fry. 2013.)

So if a group is trying to encourage equality, treating stress as acceptable or desirable will probably be counterproductive. If a group is seeking to establish hierarchy (to maximize efficiency in a division of labor for instance) restrictions or "taboos" on stress are likely to interfere. Presumably the middle path between these extremes would have the widest appeal. 

This could also have implications for health policy in modern states, it is conceivable hierarchy, including the state itself, could inadvertently be restricted or prohibited in efforts to eliminate illness and fatalities from stress. 

It is also interesting that the Semai have not traditionally damaged the ecosystem they live in significantly. Lack of ability to get stressed may be a cause of environmental devastation among industrialized people due to disregard for consequences, in effect a hierarchical attitude that we are above and disconnected from the rest of the biosphere. It may seem counter-intuitive but increasing sensitivity to stress in the general population (however, and if, that may be done) may actually make us stronger, more resilient in terms of our relationship with the rest of nature in addition to making society fairer. It may even be sustainability cannot be achieved any other way within the stark limits of human nature.