What is jurema? Mimosa tenuiflora, the jurema tradition and its chemistry

THE SHORT VERSION · SWIPE

▶ Watch it as a 20-second video

‹›

Jurema is a plant, a drink and, for some communities, a sacred presence. The word mostly refers to *Mimosa tenuiflora*, a spiny legume of dry northeastern Brazil, and to the ceremonial drink made from it. This guide covers the botany, the recorded tradition, the chemistry and the open questions.

What is jurema? The plant and its names

Botanically, jurema preta (black jurema) is *Mimosa tenuiflora* (Willd.) Poir., in the pea family, Fabaceae. Plants of the World Online, run by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, accepts the name, first published in 1810, and describes a scrambling shrub or tree. Its native range runs from southern Mexico to Venezuela and northeastern Brazil, and it has been introduced to Java, Malaya, New Guinea and Sumatra. Kew records its use as animal food, as medicine, for fuel and for social purposes (POWO). Evidence: established.

Kew lists eight synonyms. Two matter for readers: *Mimosa hostilis* Benth. (1875), the name much older literature and many websites still use, and *Acacia jurema* Mart. (1828), which carries the Brazilian common name into botany (POWO). So “Mimosa hostilis” and “Mimosa tenuiflora” are the same species. In Brazil, the plant is most strongly associated with the Caatinga, the country’s semi-arid northeastern biome (Amariz et al., 2022). Evidence: established.

“Jurema” is also a looser folk name. A 2008 review lists at least 19 species called jurema in Brazil, and notes that some of them, chiefly those called jurema branca (white jurema), do not contain tryptamine alkaloids at all (Souza et al., 2008). Elsewhere the same tree has other names: in Mexico its bark is known as tepescohuite, a traditional skin remedy (Rivera-Arce et al., 2007). Evidence: established.

The jurema tradition in northeastern Brazil

According to a 2008 review by Brazilian ethnobotanists, *Mimosa* species called jurema were used in religious practice by Indigenous peoples of northeastern Brazil long before Portuguese colonisation, and after colonisation they were also taken up by Afro-Brazilians. The drink has several names. The Truká of Assunção Island (Cabrobó, Pernambuco) and the Kambiwá call it jurema wine; the Pankararu of Brejo dos Padres call it ajucá; the Atikum of Serra do Umã and the Kambiwá call it anjucá (Souza et al., 2008). Evidence: established for these groups, as recorded in the anthropological work the review cites.

The same review describes the ritual setting rather than a recipe. Tobacco and candles appear in practically all the Indigenous rituals that involve jurema, which today take place in a festival called the Toré, where people honour religious entities, including mythical ancestors, and sing traditional songs. Among the Kariri-Xocó, the trees in the forest from which the plant is taken should be seen or touched only by people initiated by the community’s elders (Souza et al., 2008). A 2005 paper confirms the drink is still used for medico-religious purposes (Vepsäläinen et al., 2005).

The tradition was once written off. A 1999 review notes that jurema use had been described as extinct in Brazil in a 1980 book, and points to later fieldwork showing it continued among the Kariri-Xocó (Ott, 1999). Evidence: established.

Afro-Brazilian jurema is less documented, by design: the 2008 review says little is published because its use is usually a well-kept secret, and that these religions are found in several Brazilian states. It also records Afro-Brazilian use of the plant to treat infections and inflammation (Souza et al., 2008). Evidence: established that the practices exist; details are kept private by the communities themselves.

What did chemical analyses find in jurema?

The headline finding is DMT, but some of the earliest work is known only through later reviews. The table lists each finding with the source we read; where we could not read the original, the source column names the review that reports it (Souza et al., 2008; Ott, 1999).

DMT was apparently first detected by Gonçalves de Lima’s team after a visit to the Pankararu village of Brejo dos Padres, under the name nigerine (Souza et al., 2008). Ott’s 1999 review credits Pachter, Zacharias and Ribeiro (1959) with isolating DMT from the roots (Ott, 1999). Evidence: established as history; we did not read the 1946 or 1959 papers.

Modern work confirms DMT with current instruments. A 2012 study analysed 24 locally obtained samples of inner bark and found DMT in all of them, at levels that varied widely between samples (Gaujac et al., 2012); a 2022 study identified and quantified it in the bark by NMR and GC-MS (Amariz et al., 2022). The 2014 work found N-methyltryptamine, DMT and a simple β-carboline in leaves and seeds (Rizwan et al., 2022). Evidence: established that DMT is present; the amount varies.

DMT is not the whole story. The bark is rich in tannins, alongside saponins, steroids, chalcones and unusual flavonoids (Souza et al., 2008). A 2024 analysis of root bark annotated 13 compounds, most of them tannins (de Sousa et al., 2024). Yuremamine, isolated from stem bark in 2005, was described as a new class of plant indoles (Vepsäläinen et al., 2005); in 2015 chemists who synthesised it revised its structure to a flavonoid-linked indole (Calvert and Sperry, 2015). Evidence: established.

Is jurema active without an MAO inhibitor?

This is the puzzle that draws pharmacologists to jurema. Swallowed on its own, DMT is nearly inactive, because the enzyme monoamine oxidase A breaks it down on first pass through the gut and liver; in ayahuasca, β-carbolines from the vine block that enzyme (Egger et al., 2024). Jurema, as traditionally described, contains no such vine. See why DMT breaks down so fast. Evidence: established for DMT.

The 2008 review sets out the competing explanations. One is that the plant supplies its own MAO-inhibiting compounds: β-carbolines were reported in it by Meckes-Lozoya and colleagues in 1990. Another, from Ott (2002), is that the drink is visionary on its own and that inactive preparations were simply too weak. The review’s own conclusion is cautious: there is no firm evidence yet that the drink is hallucinogenic by itself, and its effects may vary with the different ingredients different cultures add (Souza et al., 2008). Evidence: unresolved.

Animal work has added a twist without settling it. In a 2022 mouse study, a standardised bark extract, which contained DMT and yuremamine, had an antidepressant-like effect in behavioural tests whether or not harmine (a β-carboline) was added, and blocking 5-HT2A/2C serotonin receptors prevented that effect (Duarte-Filho et al., 2022). That is mice, not psychedelic effects in people. Evidence: preliminary.

What about the “yuremamine hypothesis”, the online idea that yuremamine explains jurema’s activity? In the papers we read, yuremamine was isolated, characterised and re-assigned (Vepsäläinen et al., 2005; Calvert and Sperry, 2015), but none tested whether it changes how DMT acts in the body. It is a hypothesis, not a finding. Evidence: unresolved.

Jurema vs ayahuasca: how do they differ?

Both are South American sacred drinks that contain DMT, which is why they are often compared (Duarte-Filho et al., 2022). Ayahuasca is made from two plants: leaves of *Psychotria viridis*, which supply DMT, and stalks of the *Banisteriopsis caapi* vine, which supply β-carbolines such as harmine. It is traditionally used by Indigenous groups of northwestern Amazonian countries, including Brazil, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador (Dos Santos and Hallak, 2024), and also by Brazilian churches such as the Santo Daime and the União do Vegetal (Gaujac et al., 2012). See what is ayahuasca and the ayahuasca vine.

The research gap is real. Ayahuasca has human experimental and observational studies, though few controlled trials and small samples (Dos Santos and Hallak, 2024). For jurema, the 2008 review called for more studies on how DMT acts in the body and more careful observation of traditional preparations (Souza et al., 2008). We found no human clinical trial of jurema.

Jurema bark beyond ritual: wound-healing research

In Mexico, tepescohuite bark is a popular remedy for skin lesions, and that use has been tested. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial published in 2007 treated venous leg ulcers with a hydrogel containing a tannin-standardised bark extract or the same hydrogel without it, for 13 weeks of follow-up. Every patient in the extract group responded, with ulcer size reduced by a mean of 92% after the eighth week, against one responder in the control group, and no side effects in either group (Rivera-Arce et al., 2007). Evidence: preliminary.

A larger follow-up did not confirm that result. In a 2012 randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial at a specialist wound and ostomy care centre, 41 patients with venous leg ulcers were enrolled and 32 completed it. Both groups also received compression, and ulcers shrank in both, with no significant difference between the extract hydrogel and the plain hydrogel; the authors concluded the extract was not superior (Lammoglia-Ordiales et al., 2012). Evidence: on current trials, not shown to beat standard care.

What does research say about toxicity?

The clearest toxicity findings come from farm animals. Ruminants grazing northeastern Brazil’s semi-arid rangelands often have birth defects. In a 2007 study, four pregnant goats fed fresh *M. tenuiflora* delivered four kids, three with malformations such as cleft lip and eye defects, while control goats and goats fed another suspect plant delivered normal kids (Pimentel et al., 2007). A 2014 rat study found more cleft palate and skeletal malformations in pups whose mothers were fed the plant, its extracts or purified N-methyltryptamines (Gardner et al., 2014). Evidence: established in animals; not studied in people.

A 2024 study gave mice a single oral dose of a root-bark extract. None died, but the authors found changes in blood tests and kidney weight and tissue changes in the heart, liver and kidneys (de Sousa et al., 2024). Older observations recorded intense pupil dilation and high blood pressure with jurema, and the 2008 review notes that some plants added to Afro-Brazilian jurema drinks have confirmed toxic effects (Souza et al., 2008). Evidence: preliminary.

Is jurema (Mimosa hostilis) legal in Canada?

We read the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act on 24 October 2026, in the consolidation current to 30 September 2026 and last amended on 18 July 2026. Schedule III, item 7, lists “N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) (3-[(2-dimethylamino) ethyl]indole) and any salt thereof”. A search of the full text found no mention of *Mimosa*, *tenuiflora*, *hostilis* or jurema; the only entries in the Act that name plants are the precursor listings for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine (Justice Laws, CDSA). Evidence: established for what the text says.

Not being named does not make a plant legal to sell, import or consume for its DMT, and laws change. For the full picture, see is DMT legal in Canada. This is not legal advice.

What we still don’t know

• Why jurema drinks are active at all, given that DMT is inactive when swallowed alone: the plant’s own compounds, other ingredients, or both (unresolved).
• Whether yuremamine does anything in the body: no study we found has tested it (unresolved).
• How much the chemistry varies across the plant’s range, and with season and plant part (unresolved).
• What jurema means in the communities’ own terms: much of the published record is by outside researchers, and Afro-Brazilian practice, often discussed under the name Catimbó-Jurema, is deliberately kept private. We did not read ethnographies of it directly.
• We did not read the 1946, 1959, 1961 and 1990 papers in full; their findings here come from the 2008 and 1999 reviews.

Shroomverse sells mushroom products. This article is general information about the botany, ethnography, chemistry and legal status of a Brazilian plant. It is not medical, legal or purchasing advice, and it does not recommend any product.