M S Smith

Some of you may be familiar with Eduardo Calderon, the famous shaman of Peru. He is the one is front of the Mesa we see in most of those old B&W photos (see the one below). This is a film I found that includes him. http://www.doneduardo.ch/e_home.html ~Michael~

I found this excessively small photo of a plant claimed to be Trichocereus tulhuayacensis at http://oreopanaxperu.blogspot.com.es/, but question it's accuracy since T. tulhuayacensis has been described as coming from Peru, 10 km from Huancayo, near Huacha in Junín region, which is in central Peru east of Lima, though on the east side of the Andes. oreopanaxperu states that the plant in their photo comes from the Distrito de Yunga in the Moquegua Region of far southern Peru. I'm not sure what to think of this and simply thought to share. I know there are other posts that touch on this species, but thought maybe if others wanted to share more about the species or their particular plants they could do so here. Here's a plant from Junín that I have suspected may be T. tulhuayacensis. ~Michael~

Here's something I threw together over the last day or two. It is more or less a repeat of some of the stuff I've said before, but I tried to put it in a little more order. I hope everyone likes it and finds it useful. ~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. 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 is a 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 glacous (“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 two 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.

Sorry to say, I must be signing off. With luck it won't be long, but only time will tell. Thanks for allowing me to share and for sharing back. Truly yours, ~Michael~

Just found this incredible photo of a ceramic piece from the Chavin Culture (900-200 bce). I would love to see more items if anyone has them. ~Michael~

That's really neat! Are they taking the seed just to get the fruit and fruit remnants on the seed or after the seed itself? ~Michael~

Stateside here, and nothing to offer you plant-wise, but I have a feeling you'll have me hanging on every word of yours if you post in the spirituality/philosophy forum. Welcome. ~Michael~

That first shot is just the sort of plant I love. Truly beautiful. ~Michael~

I only ask as there seems to be so much human intervention in Trichocereus, particularly in central to northern Peru, going back at least 3,000 years to the Chavin culture if not much further. It just makes me wonder if these early explorers were naming plants simply by differences from others they've seen, and which could have been cloned over centuries, but lack general populations of somewhat homogeneous plants that reproduce amongst themselves and take to the soil naturally. I guess my question is about how one might differenciate a species from a clone in a culture which has for so long interacted with the genus. In looking at some of the plants of southern Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, there are ranges over which the giant Trichocereus are spread and which somewhat more clearly allows one to consider certain populations species, and subspecies, but when it comes to some of the "species" of Peru, and of which are the focus of our interest, this seems to be lacking in some respects. Is there any sort of listing available which outlines which of these have clear-cut populations of naturally growing homogenous plants that reproduce and grow naturally without hint of human intervention? I would undoubtedly consider T. cuzcoensis and T. peruvianus in this list, and likely T. pachanoi and T. schoenii, but are there self-replicating naturalized "stands" of such "species" as T. tarmaensis, T. pallarensis, T. santaensis, T. tulhuayacensis, and T. puquiensis that mimic how most cactus taxa grow over a certain territory? ~Michael~

Thanks! You answered some of my follow-ups without me having to ask. One more thing though, do you agree with E.F. Anderson's view that to be regarded as a species there must be an edimic/indigenous population of relatively homogeneous plants? (I'm of course not trying to preclude the possibility of plants that might have been introduced to a new location in the past by whatever means and evolved over time into a new species and developed a naturalized population.) Does this make sense? ~Michael~

Looks like Euphorbia trigona, but without the little leaflets. ~Michael~

Nice, a couple four ribbed seedlings in there. Wish i could keep up with some of you, but seriously little space or time. ~Michael~

kt, I've thoroughly enjoyed the history and am very much looking forward to comments addressing the "quite recognizable and distict" differences between T. peruvianus and T. macrogonus, differences which you appear to indicate don't necessarily mean they are different species. I can easily gather that the name T. macrogonus might have precedence over the name T. peruvianus, but if these two can be recognized as distict from each other, and therefore be worthy of a difference in name, even if that be at the subspecies or variation level, then what of the plethora of others that may have comparable disimilarities but are clearly in the same species? Are we then to create a plethora of subspecies or variations? ~Michael~

I'd guess T. candicans or T. pseudocandicans.

I was just looking to indicate a cross of the two species and really wasn't thinking about which was maternal or paternal. As for the need for a plant to be in the ground to grow true to form, well how might the T. scopulicola photo I posted above not be true to form? I could just as easily say a plant is not true to form if growing outside of the species evolutionary niche. Seriously, could one claim that a T. peruvianus growing in a container in Matucana would not grow to form just like one next to it growing in the ground? ~Michael~

Is the skin waxy or a little rough when you run your fingernail down it? Still look somewhat like a T. bridgesii x T. scopulicola to me. ~Michael~

I spent a couple years when younger in a very intensive and personal study of mysticism and was surprised by this articles lack of citation of Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism: The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness. This work is a classic and if you have a chance to read it then don't pass it up. While James Frazier in his own classic, The Golden Bough, shows the commonality of myths and rituals throughout the outer world Ms. Underhill does the same, but for the religious life of the inner world. ~Michael~

Looks like an odd T. scopulicola x T. bridgesii to me. The epidermis looks matte, i.e., unreflective and slightly rough in texture. Such texture, as well as the folded in areoles seems more like t. scopulicola than anything else to me. Compare to this T. scopulicola I grew from Sacred Succulent seed. ~Michael~

I'd probably just consider it one of many T. pachanoi types that exist in the same region as so many others and wouldn't think that it is somehow distinct. Who knows if it even represents a particularly prominent form, hell, do we even know where specifically on the Rio Lurin it comes from or whether or not it's just somebodies cultivated plant grown besides their home? Wiki states that "The Lurín River is a 108.57 kilometres (67.46 mi) long watercourse located in the Lima Region"... and "crosses the provinces Huarochiri and Lima in the Lima region before emptying into the Pacific Ocean" Seems like it would be best to say it's just a clone of unknown provenance. That it, the photo above of Trout's, came from Knize doesn't help matters, in that case it could have come from anywhere. Not to say one shouldn't find the plant pretty and therefore desirable of course, or that it wouldn't be a nice "tag" addition to the good ol' collection. ~Michael~

Yup, you bet. ~Michael~

Nope, Saguaro's don't have flower hair. Those are T. terscheckii. ~Michael~

The first two photo sure do look like the PC. I take it this last photo is the mother plant of picture #3 in post #1? ~Michael~

I agree about the name etc., but I Ritter said T. knuthianus was a variety of T. cuzcoensis, not T. santaensis. See post #4 here... http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21959&p=227961 Backeberg's photo above looks like T. taramaensis more than anything else to me, which appears to fall into the T. cuzcoensis forms. ~Michael~

Ditto.

Interesting. Not the same as me cutting open a tomato and finding little sprouted seeds eh? ~Michael~