Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
trucha

How to recognize a pachanoi

Question

As if I have all the time in the world....

I was wondering what features can reliably recognize a pachanoi.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Ughhhhhh.. This might open up a can of worms....

I go San Pedro collecting sometimes, there are places in my neighborhood where this cactus grows. Is there a set of key defining physical eatures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This one sorta has me confused. The pup looks non PC to me but the rest of the plant does. What do you think?

post-14335-0-80157900-1392180902_thumb.j

post-14335-0-52079200-1392180920_thumb.j

post-14335-0-95567800-1392180934_thumb.j

post-14335-0-03661000-1392180961_thumb.j

post-14335-0-11944300-1392180975_thumb.j

post-14335-0-29974800-1392180986_thumb.j

post-14335-0-77430500-1392181020_thumb.j

post-14335-0-84809400-1392181044_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This one sorta has me confused. The pup looks non PC to me but the rest of the plant does. What do you think?

A wise old Inca once said: 'Do not judge a cactus by its pup'.

(or maybe that was some spaced out hippie from California)

Let the pup grow a bit and see how it turns out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think the pup looks like something between a T. scopulicola and T. bridgesii, but that's what I think of the PC in general.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

fuck the pup.

there's discussion about how pachanoi peruvianus and macrogonus (hey, maybe even cuzco) are just phenotypes of the same species. lol

hey, the pup of the penis plant, at first it looks just like a proper bridgesi pup, so wut?

but maybe you can see some stuff of the bloodline in the pups, so MAYBE there's a point in all this.

Hey michael I will take shots of that tricho you had said its interesting. It looks like a pachanoi, a bit like PC but its got a more peruvian phenotype.

of course it came as a pachanoi, SAB "2" , in particular.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

okey

is this a PC?

P1110409.jpg no

this?

P1110410.jpg

P1110411.jpg

no this is pachanoi "2" I was saying. it has some peruvian elements, or so it seems to me. and its bluer than most of my pachs.

this ?

P1110412.jpg

no, still no.

no, this is

here's it's pachanoi "2" VS another pach which is still not PC

P1110414.jpg

contrary to these

the cactus on the left , I am pretty sure its a PC, next to 2x kk339 s . it has startedand stayed small weak (shady start) and spine less.

P1110415.jpg

"omar" and "alf" from oz indeed look a bit like PC

Edited by mutant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here's how to tell a PC Pach apart from Non-PC Pach if you are growing them outdoors in zone 8...

First, I'll note that I got most of my PC's from different ppl pretty much in tropical zones, but then again I got

most of the plants you see behind her, whats left of her anyways, from warmer zones... she's already going mushy at the base...

post-11432-0-54668700-1393097439_thumb.j post-11432-0-79056300-1393097524_thumb.j

in the pic on the right hand side above are the other columnar losses (and an opuntia in the black plastic pot)

the 4 others on the left hand side were PC's that croaked... on the right, a couple of skinny peruvianuses

a lumberjack rotted stump and log (saved a teeny weeny little tip eh) and a little terscheckii I bought that

arrived with hardly any roots and didn't grow in a year...

And the survivors...

post-11432-0-63916500-1393097810_thumb.j post-11432-0-52072900-1393097850_thumb.j

The three on the left were nursery PC's possibly altmans but maybe not.. and on the right were

some ebay sourced that look a little different than PC's and seem to grow really slow and stay

skinnier but now I realize that somtimes skinny cutting can take a long time to fatten up so im patient...

this on on the other hand is a the stump of another one I thought was PC but also stays really skinny

anyhow this one grows like a skinny pc.. I think got weak at the base and fell over from the

weight of blankets and tarps... the 24 inch stem the fell off just got a little spotted but

is otherwises really healthy looking and feeling... this one possibly got stunted by spending half

of the previous season under fluoros... thats just a guess tho and I think its possibly a nursery

hybrid with a skinnier form.. its the only plant that grew well under fluoros just never grew

much thicker even with lots of sun...

post-11432-0-80438800-1393099100_thumb.j post-11432-0-35263100-1393099402_thumb.j

the one on the right hand side of the left pic is a Non-PC Pach (a.k.a. T Peruvianus WOH)

at least thats what it was labeled as... I cut the tip off but I even believe that discolored stump will

survive... another of the same plant was right next to this plant and is perfectly green :D so I figure

this one was weaker because she was a little skinnier tipped...

The Non PC Pach that handled the winter just fine, a.k.a. T. Peruvianus WOH (ebay label)

post-11432-0-10685600-1393099698_thumb.j

So I wonder has anyone who lives in a zone that receives winter sometimes and grows outdoors,

experienced anything different? I wonder about the variables that could make PC's Weaker... all my

plants got the same nutes all year, rain water all year, they are in the same soil mix as many of

the other plants... one thing is in that pic of the skinny ones, the orange one was on the side of

the hoophouse where the wind hits so micro climate matters but there were other plants right next

to that plant ...

every plant in the first pic, spent at least one night unprotected with temps in the low 20's or

maybe in the teens.. I was out of reach and had to rely on someone else's help and as you would

guess they didn't come through l0l but thats another story ... quite a few plants had some damage

spots, i think mostly was from being covered up without sunlight, which happened before and the

spots just green back up

our lowest temp on record was 14°F/ -10°C... but it may have gotten lower last year I just looked

at 2014, we had a spell to start off winter in december that was icy and dipped in the teens and

stayed below freezing for about 3 or 4 days .. they were protected from moisture and styrofoam

cups over the tips ...after that spell i started using wool blankets ... then when I returned we

apparently had a wind storm that tore my hoophouse to shit.. it snowed one more time and that

time I just covered them all with blankets and tarps which seemed to work out okay lol...

so that should give you an idea of the coldness these plant gods slept through eh

I think some are even popping out new spines im not sure... im kinda excited they're

gonna get rained on maybe in the next day or two... it'll be near freezing the next day

hopefully the last cold spell..

so anyone have any PC's survive a winter like that?

Edited by Spine Collector
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

mutant those are all (except maybe the cactus in the background of your last pic) PC pach for sure. if you ask me..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

PC is pretty hardy IME

Paradox

so maybe the KK339 at the last photo is not a PC? hehe

and the photo that depicts the "2" and ALF (or OMAR) are both PC? Then how come the one clone is much bluer, fatter and different phenotype? They have been in the same spot side by side for a couple years... ?

I admit , ALF and OMAR, might be PC. I would like to see what Michael has to say about "2"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Ok, just opinion regarding mutants plants, but with the exception of the two taller limbs on the right in the last photo they all look like the PC to me, this regardless of some seriously subtle differences. Here's the caveat, there are quite a few crosses around that are labeled as T. pachanoi x X (or the reverse), with the T. pachanoi side being the PC. I had grown quite a few of these hybrids in the past, most from Sacred Succulents, and some of the mature plants are quite indistinguishable from the PC, while some show no PC at all and look like the other parent, while some are quite intermediary in appearence. I bet this has been going on in Australia as well.

My view at this point is that the species name game is food enough for me and a plant is pretty much what it most looks like if you don't know the parents...no need to debate clone from clone.

~Michael~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

just so that the info is accurate, I unpotted the huge PC and turns out the soil was completely wet... im not sure if the soil

stayed wet all winter but I did cover that pot with granite so the perlites wouldn't fly away! but maybe a bad idea I dunno..

its possible that water just seeped from under a tarp or something but it could be that the loss of big mama was due to

moisture moreso than winter, but the smaller ones that didn't make it were definitely in bone dry soil... Luckily I had planned

to repot half a dozen pc's last year and left them indoors ...ironically the only part of the plant that looks alive was the part

that was buried underground... I just layed the whole thing down by a fence maybe she'll sprout a pup... I think i'll throw some

compost over the roots

As far as what MS is said, there have got to be many PC look alikes by now and many PC crosses.. obviously since its

touted often as the plant with the most abundant flowers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The pachanoid from ccc i rekon is tge same clone at the Huntington its a semi monstrous first labeled peruvianus but looks pachanoi, this clone throws super long spines in full sun.this particular clone i first labeled long spined pachanoi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Some random T. pachanoi in Peru.

post-19-0-60716900-1404688054_thumb.jpg post-19-0-17497000-1404688325_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-69822600-1404688403_thumb.jpg post-19-0-70566800-1404688451_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-34380500-1404688611_thumb.jpg post-19-0-44868900-1404688908_thumb.jpg

~Michael~

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

In the text describing species "Trichocereus santaensis":

It is closely related to T.pachanoi , T.cuzcoensis, T.puquiensis and a number of other similar-looking tall growing species that are scattered around the peruvian highland valleys, possibly all representing forms of a single species.

"500 cacti", 2007, Preston

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

"About Ken Preston-Mafham - Ken Preston-Mafham is a published author of children's books and young adult books. Some of the published credits of Ken Preston-Mafham include Insects and Other Invertebrates (Facts at Your Fingertips), Butterflies of the World (Of the World), Bears (Secret World of S.), and Primates of the World (Of the World)."

http://www.jacketflap.com/ken-preston-mafham/88057

Ken Preston-Mafham appears be a conglomerate of authors or a publishing house which writes about a plethora of subjects. I wouldn't consider him an expert, but I do wonder who is in actuality responsible for those comments (I think the book is probably by Clive Innes).

Though I think there are a limited number of Trichocereus species, I wouldn't go so far as to say they represent a single species, as if I was to agree to that then how might one view Mammillaria, Parodia, Rebutia, etc.

More books by Ken Preston-Mafham...

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/c/ken-preston-mafham

http://www.amazon.com/Ken-Preston-Mafham/e/B000APUIEI/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

Preston-Mafham looks to be some sort of publishing collaborative. I could say more, but dig for yourself.

~Michael~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Dig what? the book is gold, and whoever wrote the book itself seems to have written it all (doesnt seem collaborative), and that he's got extended experience in the field and growing the family- the whole family.. he is not a fucking trichocereus obsessive so that comment is all more valuable.

As for the fact that you dont consider him an expert, the man you call the publisher, even though you assume he is a publisher and you wonder who actually wrote the book, this is a really funny statement.. In fact whenever you refer to experts especially in regards with cacti, you are doomed to be seen as funny by me.

[[[note to those who don't get the joke: MS Smith doesn't consider himself an expert on cacti and he might even be insulted if you call him that. But he is expert enough to dictate to us who is and who isn't a cactus expert.. So, if HE IS NOT an expert, then NOBODY IS]]]

Needn't you be an expert to judge who is an expert or not? And more importantly, needn't you at least check out the book (its very cheap used, I got it for 5 euros new) , before implying he is not an expert and the book is crap.

it seems your main arguement is that the authors have published more books like this, like 500 butterflies or 500 bugs... I would buy them without a thought at 5 euros... Butterflies are so beautiful!

PS: I dont necessarily agree with the statement I included, but I consider important its there in a cacti book that doesn't focus on trichos and columnars... especially the comments on other trichos...

PS2: the comments on each species of the book suggest the author has visited many forms of each species in the habitat... if you haven't read this book, and still judging it, you are all fucking wrong. The book is gold for both beginners and novice cacti enthusiasts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'll explain it a little better after work, but when one digs into him, his brother Rod, and Rod's wife Jean, as well as her Premaphotos Wildlife you'll get where I'm going. I suggest you read the back flap of Rod & Ken Preston-Mafham's "Cacti: The Illustrated Dictionary" and explore these individuals and the claims about them a bit more...if you can find anything of substance besides book titles.

As for your insistence that I am somehow discrediting the entirety of the text you are again misreading me (to be expected at this point), I am simply curious about just who is this Ken Preston-Mafham and postulate about who might be the real author, someone I suggested and who is an expert in my opinion, but that he is an expert doesn't mean I have to agree with the claim that the many Trichocereus may represent a single species. Like I said, such a singular claim would throw into question the division of species throughout the Cactaceae.

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

when you are in the position to make a proper claim, be my guest...

Do you actually own the book, or even read it??

why the heck would you wanna play sherlock on who wrote it?? It must be a good book, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

who's sherlock?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

heh sherlock holmes = a detective , lol

is this a pinned thread? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I love how these pinned "how to recognize" threads tend to stay on topic 100% of the time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

^^^^

suits our cacti section for having a how to on non species and not having them on real species like scopulicola.

Okey Michael, I am sorry if I misread you again: I thought these notes (which were published) on these species were interesting, from an overall modern , educational , fine book, IMO.... and you reply with something that is not really clear after all.... what do you mean, that the work featured in the book was stolen from another author?

You didnt explain much. Whatever you imply, it was never clear.... You imply that you have done a research on the author/publisher etc, but you dont give us the reason that prompted you to do so in the first place....Never said if you read the book... if you find it a nice book....

it was not about defending a book, or stating our own opinions, I was just contributing someone elses opinion... on pachanoi , from tha book...

I myself dont agree pachanoi is the same as cuzcoensis, and I dont fucking know whether santaensis or puquiensis have any meaning at all.. I just thought its interesting to add to the pachanoi thread...

peace and love for the cynics

contestation and radical analysis for the easily convinced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Pachanoi2


unnamed


Pachanoi3


Pachanoi1

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×