The last reference I have refers to isolation of ergot alkaloids from Ipomoea violoacea:
Moekatis et al, Biochem. Physiol. Pflanzen, 1973, 164, 248.
Seeds:
-pulverized seeds defatted in pet. ether for 5 hrs.
-1 g of this material shaken 3X (each for 1 hr.) w/ 20mL of (2g tartaric acid in 30 mL H2O, 70 mL acetone) mix
-combined extracts heated on H2O bath (55°C) to expell acetone
-tartaric acid soln. shaken 3X w/ anhydrous ether, then basified (pH 8-9) w/ NH4OH
-from this soln' alks extracted 3X w/ 10 mL DCM
-combined extracts reduced to 1 mL and chromatographed
Roots, Leaves, Stems:
-pulverized material (15g) wetted w/ 3% NH4OH
-extracted w/ 200 mL DCM in Soxhlet for 6 hrs
-condensed to 20 mL & shaken 4X each w/ 10mL 2% tartaric acid
-total of 40 mL soln. extracted 3X each w/ 10mL anhydrous ether
-tartaric acid extract made basic w/ NH4OH (pH 8-9) & shaken 3X w/ 10 mL DCM
-total of 30 mL DCM extract condensed to 0.3 mL & chromatographed...
so there. I know, there's no results of a quant. nature in this brief excerpt, even as I gave no quantities, but the point is qualitative. There are ergotogoodies in m.g. vegetation, and in my experience that is the rule and not the exception.
Otherwise, why would the working pros who did this real published chemistry have bothered to mention extracting from the vegetation, in their peer-reviewed paper? They might have got a wild notion, like SWIM did, and done the legwork, like SWIM did, but if they got zero yields (unlike SWIM), they likely as not would have quietly let it drop when it came time for the writeup.
I haven't seen their paper and don't know their results. But by my guesses into scientist behavior, my bet would go that they found alkaloids also. No point in chromotagraphing 0.3 ml of nothing...
Half-a-Pint
Post 27267 (missing)
(halfapint: "Dialkyl Amines", Chemicals & Equipment)http://rhodium.lycaeum.org/chemistry/methyliodide.txt (http://rhodium.lycaeum.org/chemistry/methyliodide.txt)