|
 M_S_Smith
CactiphileExtraordinaire
Registered: 11/20/04
Posts: 53
|
 On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus 
#9516771 - 12/30/08 06:28 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
[Here's something I wrote in march of 2008 and thought I would share after seeing a few questions on the subject pop up in the forum. I hope you enjoy. ~Michael~
On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus
By Michael S. Smith
March 16, 2008
For years the plant in the following photo has gone by the name Trichocereus pachanoi and is widely known as the "Backeberg clone," apparently without clear support that this particular clone was introduced into US cultivation by Backeberg himself [since my having brought this concern forward K.Trout has since applied the name “Predominant Cultivar”] . This plant is particularly consistent in its growth habit and appears to be a true “clone” as it is unable to crossbreed with other matching its characteristics, thereby revealing that it is of a singular genetic make-up and a plant widely propagated through clippings. It has been the common form of T. pachanoi for decades, most likely due to its particularly hardy nature in the American southwest, the region from which it appears have had its origins into general cultivation. In the last few years there has been an increase in the importation of T. pachanoi from Ecuador and Peru, none of which match this clone. I have seen little support that the so-called "Backeberg clone" grows in Ecuador or Peru as a native and historically present plant, but it is likely present there now to a small degree in collections.
I have recently suggested that the so-called “Backeberg clone” is in fact a closer relative of T. bridgesii than to the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru. This needs to be explored further, but will likely need to await genetic tests.
Next are somewhat typical T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru. This form of T. pachanoi is ubiquitous from Ecuador through Peru and to a smaller degree in Chile and northern Bolivia. It appears to have a much more prominent place in Ecuador and northern Peru than in the dryer conditions farther south. Spine length on this form can be quite variable, but the general rib formation remains fairly consistent.
Below is the so-called "short spined T. peruvianus." This name appear to be completely of my own doing when many years ago it was sent to me simply as a “T. peruvianus” and I added the "short spined" moniker to differentiate it from the then common long spined form of T. peruvianus that I have more recently suspected is T. cuzcoensis. This particular "short spined T. peruvianus" is clearly a form of T. pachanoi.
The “short spined T. peruvianus” may have had its source from the Berkeley Botanical Garden as it appears to be identical to their “Trichocereus sp. Peru #64.0762” which was collected by P. Hutchinson and J.K. Wright at the Canyon Rio Maranon above Chagual, Huamachuco Province, Peru.
As said before, the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru can be quite variable dependent upon genetics and breeding in different ranges, but this is almost solely in regards to spine length. Some T. pachanoi are mistakenly regarded as “short spined T. peruvianus” due to some considering the so-called “Backeberg clone” the standard T. pachanoi. I should note again that the “short spined T. peruvianus” is better understood as a T. pachanoi and not a T. peruvianus.
Below is the plant I consider an accurate representation of T. peruvianus. This plant is common in Department Lima, Peru, and in particular near the town of Matucana, the location assigned to the species by Britton & Rose. Like with T. pachanoi there is a range of variability in growth habit, particularly in spination, but also in regards to it being erect or decumbent. It is also much more glaucus (“frosted”) than T. pachanoi, in all likelihood due to its location in the dryer south (glaucescence appearing to serve as a sort of reflective sunscreen for the plant).
This T. peruvianus is quite distinct from the plant below which I refer to as “T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)” and which was a common T. peruvianus in cultivation since the early 1990s and was said to come from Matucana, Peru, and often went by the collection number KK242 of Karol Knize.
This “T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)” plant does not appear to be represented in the Matucana region, but it does quite accurately match plants from Department Cuzco, Peru, the location of T. cuzcoensis. Hopefully at this point it should be needless to say that the T. cuzcoensis of the Cuzco region, like T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus, also shows degrees of variability.
Lastly, here are a few pictures of plants commonly referred to as T. macrogonus. The first three are of the same plant.
It is interesting to note the similarities between the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru, the T. peruvianus of Lima, and T. macrogonus. If you look closely they are somewhat upon a sliding scale, with the T. macrogonus appearing to be an intermediary between the T. pachanoi and the T. peruvianus. These three no doubt bear flowers that upon dissection would show them to be the same identical species, therefore the name of these three should be the species that was first named and described. T. macrogonus has the oldest name, but due to the confusion regarding it, and the fact that it was described from a plant in a European collection that lacked collection data, the species name should be either T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus. But this is confounded by the fact that these two were both described as “Species Nova” (“New Species”) by Britton & Rose without comment regarding which was described first. So in the end the overarching species should be called one of these two names alone. Regardless of this botanical understanding maintaining the use of two names is valuable when trying to speaking about plants that fit a certain type, and therefore whether you call a plant T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus, seeing that the main difference is in spination, is dependent upon the length of the spines. Plants that fall somewhere in-between seem to be quickly regarded as T. macrogonus, but there is nothing that points towards T. macrogonus being any different than T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus with the exception that it has spination somewhat intermediate between these two main species.
Well I hope that helps a little bit and isn’t too confusing. I’m sure those who are students of these plants will take something from it, but please note there is nothing definitive about my opinions and they will require further research from those in a better position than I.
|
fee
Im he who is the
Registered: 01/16/03
Posts: 10,376
Loc: amsterdam
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: M_S_Smith]
#9516791 - 12/30/08 06:38 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
great info
--------------------
  
in case you want to know
SWIM means "Someone Who Is Me"
Envix said:
saying psychedelics causes bad trips is like saying forks make people fat.
|
M_S_Smith
CactiphileExtraordinaire
Registered: 11/20/04
Posts: 53
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: M_S_Smith]
#9524938 - 12/31/08 05:18 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Ha ha ha ha ha...and I was thinking I'd at least get a question or two asked of me. Oh well. Hope everyone has a happy new year!
~Michael~
|
fee
Im he who is the
Registered: 01/16/03
Posts: 10,376
Loc: amsterdam
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: M_S_Smith]
#9525052 - 12/31/08 05:55 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
M_S_Smith said:
Ha ha ha ha ha...and I was thinking I'd at least get a question or two asked of me. Oh well. Hope everyone has a happy new year!
~Michael~
well my only question would involve the cuzco strain
I believe this is a cuzco and have been stern on it
whats your opinion?
--------------------
in case you want to know
SWIM means "Someone Who Is Me"
Envix said:
saying psychedelics causes bad trips is like saying forks make people fat.
|
M_S_Smith
CactiphileExtraordinaire
Registered: 11/20/04
Posts: 53
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: fee]
#9526514 - 01/01/09 06:11 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'd definitely say it was what I called above the "T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)".
I've always been a little concerned about simply just saying straight out that it was T. cuzcoensis, but since I first propagated my thought that it might be T. cuzcoensis the concensus has leaned towards supporting me. At first Trout was a bit suspicious of my position, but it seems to have gained favor with him.
~Michael~
|
scruffymafia
Dreamer
Registered: 05/30/07
Posts: 2,073
Loc: Wonderland
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: M_S_Smith]
#9532800 - 01/02/09 03:09 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Thanks for the info Michael, i was going to reply a few days ago but i was way too jaded after nye. Its a shame no one really took any notice of your thread, seems to be the way here tho - all the relatively retarded threads get a swarm of ego accentuating posts but when something truly useful comes along its ignored.. Oh well.
I have been thinking about what the hell exactly the backberg clone really is. I find it offensive how its called San Pedro as it is nothing of the sort. When you see what the Chavin, Machu and Chachapoya people called San Pedro - its nothing alike. The fact that the long spined San Pedro (what i consider the real San Pedro) is labeled as the same species as the backberg clone is ridiculous. They are obviously two completely different species.
I never noticed until you noted the subtle similarities between the backberg clone and T. bridgesii. My considerations on the backberg clone that it is probably just some cultivated 'mongrel' by the local Indians. I think it is probably mix of a few different species (pachanoi, scopulicola and briggesii - maybe others i am not sure). It was probably cultivated and cross bred to try and get the best traits of the different species. Thats why no-one finds these backberg type cacti when they go deep into the jungle - they are still probably growing in the backyards of the local tribesmen.
And the whole peruvianus/cuzcoensis thing.. In my view, cuzcoensis have much longer spines that peruvianus. They are chunkier, have a much rounder head and are a deep green. Peruvianus, shorter, sometimes redish spines, sharper head, thiner and blue waxy skin.
But to label a cacti just off that is stupid. Most cacti you will find for sale today are such mongrels theres no point labeling them a certain species. As you said, they should just all be called T. pachanoi.
But thats not fun. This whole species identification thing is futile imo.
--------------------
This is the strangest life I've ever known.
When you realize how perfect everything is you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky.
|
 Dr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer
Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,454
Loc: UK
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: scruffymafia]
#10259477 - 04/29/09 09:59 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
must read thread for cactus n00bs!
*bump*
|
ethnoguy
"Raper of Mother Nature"
Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,893
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: Dr. uarewotueat]
#10259672 - 04/29/09 10:33 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Nice bump. Adding it to the memorable thread list?
EG
|
StevenMichael
B-Team Administrator
Registered: 03/03/03
Posts: 56,402
Loc: racecar
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: Dr. uarewotueat]
#10259685 - 04/29/09 10:36 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
So bridgesii is still a different species, right?
Anyway, I really got to get my ass down there to Peru and Bolivia.
|
ethnoguy
"Raper of Mother Nature"
Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,893
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: StevenMichael]
#10259689 - 04/29/09 10:37 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Bridgesii is a specie of the Trichocereus genus. I don't get your question.
EG
|
StevenMichael
B-Team Administrator
Registered: 03/03/03
Posts: 56,402
Loc: racecar
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: ethnoguy]
#10259727 - 04/29/09 10:43 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
If pachanoi, peruvianus, and macrogonus are all apparently the same specie, I was wondering if bridgesii was still a different specie.
But, it was a dumb question or else he would've talked about that considering he compared the backberg clone more to bridgesii than pachanoi
Don't mind me, I'm cactus-retarded
|
ethnoguy
"Raper of Mother Nature"
Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,893
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: StevenMichael]
#10259740 - 04/29/09 10:46 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
They are all different species. They all share the same genus (i.e. Trichocereus).
EG
|
Dr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer
Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,454
Loc: UK
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: StevenMichael]
#10259749 - 04/29/09 10:48 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
they are not the same species, they are from the same genus of plants, trichocereus. which has been absorbed into echinopsis now.
most people still call them trichocereus though.
the backberg clone is thought to be a hybrid.
|
StevenMichael
B-Team Administrator
Registered: 03/03/03
Posts: 56,402
Loc: racecar
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: Dr. uarewotueat]
#10259794 - 04/29/09 10:54 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I was just going off this
Quote:
These three no doubt bear flowers that upon dissection would show them to be the same identical species, therefore the name of these three should be the species that was first named and described. T. macrogonus has the oldest name, but due to the confusion regarding it, and the fact that it was described from a plant in a European collection that lacked collection data, the species name should be either T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus.
|
mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades
Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 5 months, 21 days
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: StevenMichael]
#10259799 - 04/29/09 10:54 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Damn...
Somebody should make an identification thread and sticky it...
Ten photographs of each species, including flowers and seed photos. I would imagine that at some point, seeds can help identify a cactus.
Total newb though, so don't mind me.
--------------------
Imagine if you needed it and it wasn't there... GIVE BLOOD
Get a free (PAINLESS) bone marrow testing kit and help save lives HERE.
Jesus if you're reading this, please come back already. We need you now more than ever!
The U.S. Constitution!
Best WBS Tek
Potato-Honey Agar Tek
MY TRADES
|
ethnoguy
"Raper of Mother Nature"
Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,893
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10259825 - 04/29/09 10:58 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
All anyone has to do is post a pic of their find. If you are new to cacti, all the photos in the world probably aren't going to convince you. Its good to get others opinions.
paradis- Don't mind that jargon. Trust us on this one  . Thats the short answer. You may have just opened this can of worms again though lol.
EG
|
Dr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer
Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,454
Loc: UK
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: StevenMichael]
#10260340 - 04/30/09 01:16 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
paradis said:
I was just going off this
Quote:
These three no doubt bear flowers that upon dissection would show them to be the same identical species, therefore the name of these three should be the species that was first named and described. T. macrogonus has the oldest name, but due to the confusion regarding it, and the fact that it was described from a plant in a European collection that lacked collection data, the species name should be either T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus.
it is all speculation based on opinion man.
nothing is at all clear about this genus of plants.
there is much variation within members of the same species.
and the natural habitat of some of the species from the genus overlap meaning that there are natural hybrids.
add to that the mislabelling that goes on by collectors (what looks like one species to one person may look like a different species to another person) and the sale of hybrid seed that originated within private collections under a single species name and you have loads of confusion.
really it is all guess work on the half M_S_Smith based on what he see's within his own extensive collection of plants.
of course he is one of the people we should all be listening to as the debate about classifying these plants continues.
that doesn't mean that he knows everything though, and states that himself in alot of his writings on the subject.
personally speaking: i gave up labelling and trying to id my trichs a while back, i'm more than happy to see variation in my own collection.
that said, there are a few that can be easily pinned down to certain clones or species based on the current general consensus.
|
cpw1971
Mr
Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 5,313
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: Dr. uarewotueat]
#10261026 - 04/30/09 06:26 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I dunno but them new spines on that Peruvian are awfully yellow and fat the the base. Not on my Peruvianus
MS should bioassay it.
Extract from it to get a rough % of mesc content. Compare the % with other Trichs.
Or eat a foot of it... If nothing happens then its a Cuzco 
how about this..... If you trip face from it I will never bring this up again and will agree joyfully that thats a true Peruvian. But for now I steer clear from cacti like that.
--------------------
Anything I type on here is pure speculation and should be treated as such.
|
plainswalker
Plant Shepherd
Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 765
Last seen: 3 months, 26 days
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: cpw1971]
#10261658 - 04/30/09 09:27 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The spines are fresh, once they age and dehydrate you can see they go skinny.
--------------------
tradelist
|
cpw1971
Mr
Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 5,313
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: plainswalker]
#10262445 - 04/30/09 11:59 AM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
yes but the bases are yellow and fat. I read thats a Cuzco trait.
My Icaros Peruvianus dont do that. I have tried them many many times and I can have a good time from 10 dried grams.
If someone wants to send me a cutting of one of those. I'll test that shit and post my results.
But I think I read about someone who ate a shitload and felt nothing.
--------------------
Anything I type on here is pure speculation and should be treated as such.
|
mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades
Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 5 months, 21 days
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: cpw1971]
#10262473 - 04/30/09 12:04 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah I think it was four feet. I read that last night. Four feet, I think... That's a LOT to stomach!
--------------------
Imagine if you needed it and it wasn't there... GIVE BLOOD
Get a free (PAINLESS) bone marrow testing kit and help save lives HERE.
Jesus if you're reading this, please come back already. We need you now more than ever!
The U.S. Constitution!
Best WBS Tek
Potato-Honey Agar Tek
MY TRADES
|
plainswalker
Plant Shepherd
Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 765
Last seen: 3 months, 26 days
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10263371 - 04/30/09 02:28 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yellow, well yes new cuzco spines are usually yellow and thick but the same is true with many other Trichocereus species. I have a bridgesii growing nice fat yellow spines right now.
The thing with cuzcos and swollen bases is that after the spines dry out, the spines are characteristically swollen at the very base. You can see this in the first picture of the cuzcoensis. But looking at the peruvian, the dried spines do not exhibit the swollen base.
--------------------
tradelist
|
cpw1971
Mr
Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 5,313
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: plainswalker]
#10263605 - 04/30/09 03:12 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
mushroomhunter
Yep I believe it was from the same thread I read about the 4 feet.
I would just test 10 dry grams though. If no effects then bammmm the Cuzco rumors are true.
Plainswalker...
yeah Maybe some Bridgesii spines start yellow but I read true active Peruvianus arent supposed to do that.
But thats only what I read so I wanna hear from someone who tried said yellow spined Peruvianus or I will try one myself lol.
ok heres how it is....
Peruvianus is said to be active
I have tried and verified it myself. It is not supposed to have yellow spines at any stage
Cuzcoensis is said to be non active.
It is said to have yellow new spines that turn gray with age. I havent tried it but if anyone has post away.
why tout a non active as an active if you dont know for a fact that it is active??
Untill I tried it and verified it myself as active I would call the thing a Cuzco.
From what I read there was a lot of vendors selling Cuzcos on Ebay and people were getting pissed because they got ripped off.
--------------------
Anything I type on here is pure speculation and should be treated as such.
Edited by cpw1971 (04/30/09 03:26 PM)
|
plainswalker
Plant Shepherd
Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 765
Last seen: 3 months, 26 days
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: cpw1971]
#10264071 - 04/30/09 04:31 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Obviously I can't say for sure the cactus you're talking about is active or not active (although looking at it I would bet a paycheck it is active), but I can say for sure it isn't a cuzcoensis. It doesn't fit cuzcoensis's phenotype, not close. The cactus below that one fits the usual example of cuzcoensis.
--------------------
tradelist
|
Dr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer
Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,454
Loc: UK
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: plainswalker]
#10264524 - 04/30/09 05:36 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
@ paradis: see what i mean about nothing being clear!
|
cpw1971
Mr
Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 5,313
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: plainswalker]
#10264536 - 04/30/09 05:37 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
yep
the one below it does fit the Cuzco bill better.
I guess a true Peruvian Torch would have to have the bright glowing tip. It sure is beautifull though.
Perhaps mine will do that when it gets big enough??
--------------------
Anything I type on here is pure speculation and should be treated as such.
|
preschooler
Stranger
Registered: 01/27/03
Posts: 3,835
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: Dr. uarewotueat]
#10264938 - 04/30/09 06:30 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Dr. uarewotueat said:
@ paradis: see what i mean about nothing being clear!
I think its fairly easy to identify characteristics. The last testing on mescaline content is unclear..... no pics or anything of the cacti they used.Plus there is only like two listing found on the whole net about whats in these cacti.
More of ms smith http://www.flickr.com/photos/msscacti/1384531656/
and dave great pics http://www.flickr.com/photos/11243908@N03/page2/
|
Dr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer
Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,454
Loc: UK
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: preschooler]
#10265008 - 04/30/09 06:38 PM (2 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
sure, some are reasonably easy to pin down.
Quote:
Dr. uarewotueat said:
it is all speculation based on opinion man.
nothing is at all clear about this genus of plants.
there is much variation within members of the same species.
and the natural habitat of some of the species from the genus overlap meaning that there are natural hybrids.
add to that the mislabelling that goes on by collectors (what looks like one species to one person may look like a different species to another person) and the sale of hybrid seed that originated within private collections under a single species name and you have loads of confusion.
really it is all guess work on the half M_S_Smith based on what he see's within his own extensive collection of plants.
of course he is one of the people we should all be listening to as the debate about classifying these plants continues.
that doesn't mean that he knows everything though, and states that himself in alot of his writings on the subject.
personally speaking: i gave up labelling and trying to id my trichs a while back, i'm more than happy to see variation in my own collection.
that said, there are a few that can be easily pinned down to certain clones or species based on the current general consensus.
|
Dr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer
Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,454
Loc: UK
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: Dr. uarewotueat]
#10282244 - 05/04/09 03:55 AM (2 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
le bump
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
