"True" pachanoi

[tripsis]

What are the features that distinguish the "true" pachanoi to the PC/Backberg varieties? Is anyone able to post pics to show the difference. I've UTFSE and can see that notching is a feature, but can't tell if spination, colour, etc are used too.

Also, anyone got any to trade?

Thanks all.

[M S Smith]

Here's a standard Peruvian T. pachanoi on the top and a "PC" on the bottom.

Fish around my Flickr sets and I think you will understand some of the confusion.

~Michael~

Edited December 30, 2009 by M S Smith

[tripsis]

Thanks Michael, not sure if that's helped or confused me more.

The Peruvian pachanoi looks remarkably like a peruvianus to me, albeit with rather small spines. Much more glaucous than most of the pachanoi I have, although it could be the light, and I do have some pretty blue clones I've received in trades.

Maybe I'll post some pics of the diversity I have to see what people think.

[Pacha]

Here's a standard Peruvian T. pachanoi on the top and a "PC" on the bottom.

Fish around my Flickr sets and I think you will understand some of the confusion.

~Michael~

 

Michael, would you call this specimen that highly resemble yours peruvianus or pachanoi?

[Pacha]

And maybe this one is a "True" pachanoi? Or is a short spined peruvianus?

[M S Smith]

Michael, would you call this specimen that highly resemble yours peruvianus or pachanoi?

 

Well remember, both those plants of mine above are regarded as T. pachanoi (though I think the PC is more aligned to T. bridgesii). Here is a T. peruvianus which fits the standard central Peruvian type.

Your very nice variegated plant certainly leans in the direction of T. peruvianus, but I think it important to note that we are not dealing with such easily divided species; T. peruvianus and T. pachanoi are the same species in floral characteristic and there appears to be plants that run the gamut throughout this spectrum. As I said in a similar recent topic I think the wild T. peruvianus of central Peru are a true species and that T. pachanoi, in its many varied forms is a cultivar and has its origins from T. peruvianus.

As for your second photo, well I would just call it T. pachanoi. I've explained elsewhere why "short spined T. peruvianus," a title I'm responsible for is not valid.

~Michael~

[tripsis]

Okay, here are some pics. If you are able to give your opinion Michael, or anyone else, it would be very appreciated.

"Short-spined peruvianus for comparison, which I've read it the "true pachanoi":

[Chiral]

pics 1, 2 & 3 PC pach

pics 4 & 5 maybe Peruvian too young to tell

pics 6, 7 &8 PC pach

and pic 9 maybe peruvian but too young to tell with any confidence.

[tripsis]

Pics 4, 5 and 6 look somewhat different to the others. How is it that they are all PC pachanois when they all look fairly dissimilar?

[Chiral]

Pics 4, 5 and 6 look somewhat different to the others. How is it that they are all PC pachanois when they all look fairly dissimilar?

 

pics 4+5 if you read what I said are not PC so I'm not sure what you mean and I'll stick by that pic 6 is a PC pach, it's pretty unhappy and could do with some nutrients, the reason it's got slightly larger spines than normal is because it doesn't look like it has put on much growth for a long time and the spines are just old.

[tripsis]

Hmm, not sure how I misssed that.

Yes, number six is pretty nutrient deficient, it's how I received it. Not sure if it has even rooted yet. Thanks for the replies Chiral.

Edited December 31, 2009 by tripsis

[M S Smith]

tripsis, I get more and more discouraged by looking at this plant or that plant which in the end are the same species and trying to say whether they are T. peruvianus or T. pachanoi. Even if you accept the two as distinct, which technically I don't, you are, by doing so, automatically excluding and ignoring the fact that there clearly appears to be a great deal of intergrade among the two "species." If there is a great deal of intergrade, and a great deal of variability among seedling, even in a single fruit, then such species delineation are bound to be incredibly flawed. But it is somewhat easier to see T. peruvianus as a "pure" species, particularly due to it having natural populations in central Peru that are fairly consistent in both seedling and adult growth habit. Such consistency doesn't seem to appear in the plants we call T. pachanoi, in which we see variable traits as adults and variable growth habits from seedlings.

See my post #9 in this thread for some more of my comments on T. pachanoi.

Hope that helps...and regarding your plants, there does appear to be a fair bit of the "PC" in there, but from what I can tell at this point is that it has been breed into the genetics down there for some time and so I am less inclined to call something a "PC" unless it very clearly appears to be so. As for your other plants, well there certainly are some T. peruvianus traits in there, but your plants probably need to get a little more mature before I would say they were clearly T. peruvianus or rather just another variable T. pachanoi cultivar.

~Michael~

Edited December 31, 2009 by M S Smith

[M S Smith]

Here's what to me are very accurate representation of the T. peruvianus from central Peru, Dept Lima, Huarochiri.

Here's a T. pachanoi, also from Huarochiri.

I could put in many more photos, but the torrent has them all if you want more, I just want to suggest that T. pachanoi appear to be particular T. peruvianus that were selected for shamanic use and which then crossed naturally, or possibly through intentional hybridization and sowing, and continued the more desired lesser spination trait. That there are forms of the plant that extend from the blue long spined ones to the green lesser spined ones isn't shocking to me knowing that there has been a long use of these plants in region.

~Michael~

Edited December 31, 2009 by M S Smith

[Bush Turkey]

Number six almost looks loike my scop x Bridge

but its probly not.

i have this pup that was ripped off this mother

and they do not look alike at all. i think its just plain old PC or Freo PC

[bℓσωηG]

 

Edited January 1, 2010 by blowng

[Pacha]

Hey Michael, were there any genetic tests done on the species? Is there any difference in their cell structure?

My thoughts about that peruvianus and pachanoi carry the same dna are confirmed by yours, I am starting to believe that the specie of this trichocereus was wrongfully divided between the two just creating confusions and they actually have the same parental origins, only grew more distinct from one another due to enviromental difference, altitude and climate change which affected on their features.

[Pacha]

Bush Turkey, your 2 last photos show speciemens that look more like a "True" pach. blowng, hard to be sure but I lean toward a PC pach with just longer spination.

[mutant]

HI!

Questions

1. How come no DNA testing so far have been made? I remember Smith or Trout saying some european or something was doing or planning DNA tests on Trichos/Echinopsis..

2. blowng>>> what strain is that evidently tubercled 'pachanoi' in that last photo? I think I remember seeing a similar one among Smith's collection. A beauty! Reminds me a bit of my breast myrti

I have to say I am amazed that many people quite 'deeper' in the growing/botanical thing than your average psychonaut rather shallow approach don't seem to have realised the obvious crossings between several medium to big columnar Tricho species or that these data isn't widely enough spread. I don't know how long it has been around in the net, I think I remember Smith's posts where dated at the nook from as early as 2005 or so I think....

The field I know more about IDing and stuff is mushrooms, and there too lie -in some analogy- similar taxonomy problems and disagreements between expert. As in a rather newly researched and still not reasearched enough field, fungi kingdom, not unlike cacti, the same 'problems' exist: ambitious individual mycologists or botanists want to describe {= create, in a way] a new species or several of them, but sometimes, pretty often actually, the described species is only a variation, a forma or even a habitat/nutricient related appearance difference. Or tow or more people describing the same plant in different times and/or locations with a different name. They might not have known it during the time when data where more scarce.

In mushrooms too, DNA tests are now regarded as the ultimate taxonomy criterion.

World wide databases like the indexfungorum.org for mushrooms are becoming the standard for most researchers and several false species are done away with. There is a line above which I personally don't fancy to learn and study more.. Basic taxonomy botanic data is enough for the non-taxonomist or the professional scientist. And the amateur can offer a lot to the reasearch , especially with the short-lived mushrooms - by recording local frutings.

I think nature is doing it's own thing, what it does best, what has been doing for millenia. We humans are the hard spot when we begin putting labels and names and determining what f.e. class, family, genus, species, variation means in each occasion. If you change the criterions for each genus and species, the taxonomy changes, plants shift to other groupings.

IMO the best way of assorting organisms is by building the genetic , gonidial and historic tree tables.

F.e. , in mushroom taxonmy, gilled genus Paxillus are related to Boletes . Pseudogilled or not-at-all-gilled at all genuses like Cantharellus, Craterellus, Clavariadelphus, Gomphus etc are all related and are all older, they have preceded the rise of gilled mushrooms. In fact they must be some kind of intermediate to the evolution of gilles as spore producing elements.

One last thing. Quite often, what serves as the final verifying point along with the book data is the instinct, the sense, in the filed, in practice, in observation of what a species really is and how it behaves...

And returning to cacti, indeed, sometimes the true species are far less where natural hybridisation is a given.

SOrry if I went a bit offtopic. Happy new year

[tripsis]

Thanks for the replies everyone, it's been most helpful.