Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
InvisibleM_S_Smith
CactiphileExtraordinaire
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/20/04
Posts: 53
On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus * 3
    #9516771 - 12/30/08 07:28 AM (15 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblefee
Im he who is the
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/16/03
Posts: 18,238
Loc: amsterdam
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: M_S_Smith]
    #9516791 - 12/30/08 07:38 AM (15 years, 1 month ago)

great info


--------------------

blankk said to fee:
btw you're a total fucking psychedelic pimp
Turtletotem said:
I want to become a sun worshipper, so next time an atheist smugly asks me where god is, I can point smugly at the sun and laugh my ass off.

Then I drive away in my solar powered piece of shit car, cool stuff man.

And then I go kill a bitch because the flaming orb in the sky told me to do so, and I don't know, oppress a few minorities here and there in the name of nuclear fusion?

Religion is fun.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleM_S_Smith
CactiphileExtraordinaire
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/20/04
Posts: 53
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: M_S_Smith]
    #9524938 - 12/31/08 06:18 PM (15 years, 30 days 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~


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblefee
Im he who is the
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/16/03
Posts: 18,238
Loc: amsterdam
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: M_S_Smith]
    #9525052 - 12/31/08 06:55 PM (15 years, 30 days 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?




--------------------

blankk said to fee:
btw you're a total fucking psychedelic pimp
Turtletotem said:
I want to become a sun worshipper, so next time an atheist smugly asks me where god is, I can point smugly at the sun and laugh my ass off.

Then I drive away in my solar powered piece of shit car, cool stuff man.

And then I go kill a bitch because the flaming orb in the sky told me to do so, and I don't know, oppress a few minorities here and there in the name of nuclear fusion?

Religion is fun.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleM_S_Smith
CactiphileExtraordinaire
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/20/04
Posts: 53
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: fee]
    #9526514 - 01/01/09 07:11 AM (15 years, 30 days 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~


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblescruffymafia
Dreamer

Registered: 05/30/07
Posts: 2,234
Loc: Wonderland
. [Re: M_S_Smith]
    #9532800 - 01/02/09 04:09 PM (15 years, 29 days ago)

.


--------------------
This is the strangest life I've ever known.


Edited by scruffymafia (06/19/20 04:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,545
Loc: Uk / Philippines
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: scruffymafia]
    #10259477 - 04/29/09 10:59 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

must read thread for cactus n00bs!

*bump*


--------------------
View My Gallery


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineethnoguy
"Raper of Mother Nature"
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,915
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: Dr. uarewotueat]
    #10259672 - 04/29/09 11:33 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Nice bump. Adding it to the memorable thread list?

EG


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJohn NadaDiscord
Toujours Frais
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/03/03
Posts: 97,746
Loc: Hotwings; race car
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: Dr. uarewotueat]
    #10259685 - 04/29/09 11:36 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

So bridgesii is still a different species, right?


Anyway, I really got to get my ass down there to Peru and Bolivia.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineethnoguy
"Raper of Mother Nature"
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,915
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: John Nada]
    #10259689 - 04/29/09 11:37 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

Bridgesii is a specie of the Trichocereus genus. I don't get your question.

EG


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJohn NadaDiscord
Toujours Frais
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/03/03
Posts: 97,746
Loc: Hotwings; race car
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: ethnoguy]
    #10259727 - 04/29/09 11:43 PM (14 years, 8 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

:flowstone:


Don't mind me, I'm cactus-retarded


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineethnoguy
"Raper of Mother Nature"
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,915
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: John Nada]
    #10259740 - 04/29/09 11:46 PM (14 years, 8 months ago)

They are all different species. They all share the same genus (i.e. Trichocereus).

EG


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,545
Loc: Uk / Philippines
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: John Nada]
    #10259749 - 04/29/09 11:48 PM (14 years, 8 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.


--------------------
View My Gallery


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJohn NadaDiscord
Toujours Frais
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/03/03
Posts: 97,746
Loc: Hotwings; race car
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: Dr. uarewotueat]
    #10259794 - 04/29/09 11:54 PM (14 years, 8 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. 




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,360
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: John Nada]
    #10259799 - 04/29/09 11:54 PM (14 years, 8 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
EZ Potato-Honey Agar Tek
MY TRADES


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineethnoguy
"Raper of Mother Nature"
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 3,915
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: mushroomhunter10]
    #10259825 - 04/29/09 11:58 PM (14 years, 8 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 :wink:. Thats the short answer. You may have just opened this can of worms again though lol.

EG


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,545
Loc: Uk / Philippines
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: John Nada]
    #10260340 - 04/30/09 02:16 AM (14 years, 8 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.


--------------------
View My Gallery


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecpw1971
Mr
Male User Gallery
Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 5,611
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: Dr. uarewotueat]
    #10261026 - 04/30/09 07:26 AM (14 years, 8 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 :cool:

    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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineplainswalker
Plant Shepherd
Male
Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 765
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: cpw1971]
    #10261658 - 04/30/09 10:27 AM (14 years, 8 months ago)

The spines are fresh, once they age and dehydrate you can see they go skinny.


--------------------
tradelist


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecpw1971
Mr
Male User Gallery
Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 5,611
Re: On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus [Re: plainswalker]
    #10262445 - 04/30/09 12:59 PM (14 years, 8 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Real deal pachanoi? layzdapipe 2,489 18 06/01/09 08:06 PM
by layzdapipe
* L. Williamsii and E. Pachanoi seedlings (pics)
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Lopho 10,695 72 03/14/14 12:49 AM
by NarkedAt90ft
* Trichocereus ID Peruvianus/Cuzcoensis/some other hybrid? Celestica 3,873 9 04/10/14 12:34 PM
by intelligentlife
* New Cacti - T. pachanoi - Can I get an I.D. if it's regular or Backberg or something else? mushroomhunter10 2,175 15 04/12/10 03:23 AM
by mushroomhunter10
* ¿Peruvianus or Cuzcoensis? flopaa 1,622 6 05/06/14 08:03 PM
by Mostly_Harmless
* T. pachanoi and the Backberg clone highdroponics 4,110 16 06/10/09 03:53 PM
by highdroponics
* Super Pachanoi
( 1 2 all )
Ren 7,757 29 06/06/13 12:56 AM
by Mostly_Harmless
* True Peruvian Pachanoi Minus PC... Nativenglish 5,033 17 06/08/12 11:30 PM
by Nativenglish

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Mostly_Harmless, A.k.a
13,977 topic views. 2 members, 12 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
Calendar Event: 12/30/55
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.