Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
hookahhead

Trichocereus Taxonomy

Recommended Posts

In an attempt to apologize for my last thread with a similar title I am reposting this information, only this time without the psychobabble and craziness. Last semester I had an upper level plant taxonomy class, which required us to write a very large term paper and an oral presentation on a plant family of our choosing. I chose the genus Trichocereus/Echinopsis.

I did not conduct any of the physical investigation in this field, however I sourced, read, compared, and evaluated numerous texts on the subject. The end result was compiled into a 20 page paper titled "termpaperroughdraftupdate.doc" and a power point presentation titled "presentation.ppt". For those of you who do not have access to powerpoint I also included "presentation.pdf", but you lose some of the slide transitions. Most notably the flower morphology slide is all garbled in the pdf version.

I have uploaded all of these files (some separately) as a large zip file. It contains all of my sourced articles, however I did remove trout's notes on San Pedro out of respect for a great member here. Please note that some of the journal articles may not have the most informative file names, because I didn't bother going back to change them after saving them for my personal use.

I hope that you will find the information interesting and useful. The powerpoint presentation offers the most condensed and easy to follow form of the material. However for those of you interested in such matters I feel that the research paper also offers a plethora of information you may or may not have known about.

You can download the zip file at:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/57030275/Archive.zip

I also uploaded 2 other documents that I used to help me study for the class. One discusses some terms used in botany, the other discusses some plant family systematics.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/57030275/definitions.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/57030275/Plant%20family%20systematics.pdf

If you prefer individual files instead or if you missed the craziness and have a desire to see it, check out my thread in the bitches, gripes and degenerate threads forum:
http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=37313&p=450789
http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=37313&p=450674

Additionally, if you would like to listen to some good tunes while mulling over this information, please check out Mc. Yogi:
https://soundcloud.com/mc-yogi/be-the-change-earthrise

Works Referenced

Journal Articles:

Anceschi, G., Magli, A. 2013. The new monophyletic macrogenus Echinopsis. No risk of paraphyly, and the most convincing hypothesis in phylogenetic terms. Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives 31: 24-27.

Albesiano S., Terrazas
T. 2012. Cladistic Analysis of Trichocereus (Cactaceae: Cactoideae:Trichocereeae) Based on Morphological Data and Chloroplast Dna Sequences. Haseltonia 17: 3-23.

Albesiano S., Terrazas
T. 2012. A New Taxonomic Treatment of the Genus Trichocereus (Cactaceae) in Chile. Haseltonia, 18: 116-139.

Arakaki M., Christin P. A, et. al. 2011. Contemporaneous and recent radiations of the world’s major succulent plant lineages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108: 8379–8384.

Buxbaum F. 1958. The phylogenetic division of the sub- family Cereoideae, Cactaceae. Madroño 14: 177−206.

Bárcenas R, Chris Yesson C, Hawkins J. A. 2011. Molecular systematics of the Cactaceae. Cladistics 27: 470–489.

Downie S.R, Palmer J.D. 1994. A chloroplast DNA phylogeny of the Caryophyllales based on structural and inverted repeat restriction site variation. Systematic Botany 19: 236–252.

Friedrich, H. 1974. Zur Taxonomie und Phylogenie der Echinopsidinae (Trichocereinae). IOS-Bulletin 3: 79–93.

Friedrich H. and Glatzel W. 1983. Seed morphology as an aid to classifying the genus Echinopsis Zucc. Bradleya 1: 91–104.

Hernández T., Hernández H.M., et. al. 2011. Phylogenetic relation- ships and evolution of growth form in Cactaceae (Caryophyllales, Eudicotyledoneae). American Journal of Botany 98: 44–61.

Kiesling R. 1978. El género Trichocereus (Cactaceae) I: Las especies de la Rep. Argentina. Darwiniana 21: 263−330.

Korotkova N., Zabel L. , D. Quandt, and W. Barthlott. 2010. A phylogenetic analysis of Pfeiffera and the reinstatement of Lymanbensonia as an independently evolved lineage of epiphytic Cactaceae within a new tribe Lymanbensonieae. Willdenowia 40: 151–172.

Metzing D., Kiesling R. 2008. The Study Of Cactus Evolution: The Pre-DNA Era. Haseltonia 14: 6-25.

Nyffler R., Eggli U., 2010. A farewell to dated ideas and concepts - Molecular phylogenetics and a revised suprageneric classification of the family Cactaceae. Schumannia 6: 109–149.

Ritter F. 1980a. Kakteen Südamerika 2. Argentinien/Bo- livien. Germany.

Ritter F. 1980b. Kakteen Südamerika 3. Chile. Germany.

Ritter F. 1981. Kakteen Südamerika 4. Peru. Germany.

Ritz, C.M., Martins L., et al. 2007. The molecular phylogeny of Rebutia (Cactaceae) and its allies demonstrates the influence of paleogeography on the evolution of South American mountain cacti. American Journal of Botany 94: 1321–1332.

Rowley, G.D. 1974. Reunion of the genus Echinopsis. A preface to nomenclatural revisions. IOS Bulletin 3: 93–99.

Schick
R. 2011. Echinopsis sensu stricto and Trichocereus: Differentiating the Genera. Cactus and Succulent Journal 83: 248-255.

Schlumpberger B.O., Renner S.S., 2012. Molecular Phylogenetics of Echinopsis (Cactacea): Polyphyly at all Levels and Convergent Evolution of Pollinator Modes and Growth Forms.

Books:

Anderson, E. F. 2001. The cactus family. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Anderson, E. F. 2005. Das große Kakteen-Lexikon. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.

Backeberg C. 1959. Die Cactaceae 2. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena.

Barthlott, W., Hunt, D., 1993. Cactaceae. The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, Vol. II. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 161–197.

Britton NL, Rose JN. 1920. The Cactaceae: Descriptions and illustrations of plants of the cactus family. Vol. 2. Carnegie Institution, Washington.

Cronquist A., Thorne R. F. 1994. Nomenclatural and taxonomic history. Caryophyllales: Evolution and Systematics 87-121. Springer, Berlin.

Gibson, A.C., Nobel P.S. 1986. The cactus primer. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Hillis, D. M. 2012. Principles of life. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates

Hunt, David et al. 2006. The New Cactus Lexicon, DH Books, the Manse, Chapel Lane, Milborne, England.

Nobel, Park S. 2002. Cacti biology and uses. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Trout, K. 1999. Trout's notes on sacred cacti: botany, chemistry, cultivation & utilization (including notes on some other succulents). 2 ed. Austin, TX: Better Days Pub.

Websites:

"tassonomia | cactusinhabitat." tassonomia | cactusinhabitat. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://www.cactusinhabitat.org/index.php?p=tassonomia&l=en>.

Other:

The Cactus Explorer’s club, 2013. The Cactus Explorer 8. Briars Bank, Fosters Bridge, Ketton, Stamford PE9 3BF U.K.

Olabode Olufunmilayo Ogunbodede 2009. Alkaloid Content in Relation to Ethnobotanical use of Trichocereus Pachanoi and Related Taxa. A Thesis Presented to the School of Arts and Sciences Sul Ross State University

(some may or not may be used in this list this was an initial investigation)

Albesiano S., 2012. A New Taxonomic Treatment of the Genus Trichocereus (Cactaceae) in Chile. Haseltonia: Vol. 18, pp. 116-139.

Albesiano S., Terrazas T., 2012. Cladistic Analysis of Trichocereus (Cactaceae: Cactoideae: Trichocereeae) Based on Morphological Data and
Chloroplast DNA Sequences. Haseltonia: Vol. 17, pp. 3-23.

Alonso-Pedano M., Ortega-Baes P., 2012. Generalized and complementary pollination system in the Andean cactus Echinopsis schickendantzii. Plant Syst Evol: Vol. 
298, pp. 1671-1677.

Barcenasa R. T, Yessonb C. Hawkinsb J. A., 2011. Molecular systematics of the Cactaceae. Cladistics: Vol. 27, pp. 470–489.

Boke N. H., 1941. Zonation in the Shoot Apices of Trichocereus spachianus and Opuntia cylindrical. American Journal of Botany: Vol. 28, pp. 656-664.

Corio C., Soto I. M., Carreira V., Pardo J., Betti M. I. L., Hasson E., 2013. An alkaloid fraction extracted from the cactus Trichocereus terscheckii affects fitness in the cactophilic fly Drosophila buzzatii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society: Vol. 109, pp. 342–353.

Griffith P., 2004. What Did the First Cactus Look like? An Attempt to Reconcile the Morphological and Molecular Evidence
. Taxon: Vol. 53, pp. 493-499.

Hjertson M. L., 1994. The Identity of Echinopsis pygmaea R. E. Fr. (Cactaceae). Taxon: Vol. 43, pp. 455-457

Kinoshita K., Takizawa T., Koyama K., Takahashi K., 1995. New Triterpenes from Trichocereus pachanoi. Journal of Natural Products: Vol. 58, pp. 1739-1744.

Kinoshita K., Takizawa T., Koyama K., Takahashi K., 1992. New Triterpenes from Trichocereus bridgesii. Journal of Natural Products: Vol. 55, pp. 953-955.

Niklas K.J., Mauseth J. D., 1981. Relationships among Shoot Apical Meristem Ontogenic Features in Trichocereus pachanoi and Melocactus matanzanus (Cactaceae)
. American Journal of Botany: Vol. 68, pp. 101-106.

Ogunbodedea O., McCombsa D., Trout K., Daley P., Terry M., 2010. New mescaline concentrations from 14 taxa/cultivars of Echinopsis spp. (Cactaceae) (“San Pedro”) and their relevance to shamanic practice. Journal of Ethnopharmacology: Vol. 131, pp. 356–362.

Ogunbodedea O., 2009. Alkaloid Content in Relation to Ethnobotanical Use of Trichocereus pachanoi and Related Taxa. A Thesis Presented to the School of Arts and Sciences: Sul Ross State University.

Ortega-Baes P., Gorostiague P., 2013. Extremely reduced sexual reproduction in the clonal cactus Echinopsis thelegona. Plant Syst Evol: Vol. 299, pp. 785–791

Ortega-Baes P., Rojas-Arechiga M., 2007. Seed germination of Trichocereus terscheckii (Cactaceae): Light, temperature and gibberellic acid effects. Journal of Arid Environments: Vol. 69, pp. 169–176.

Schick R., 2011. Echinopsis sensu stricto and Trichocereus: Differentiating the Genera. Cactus and Succulent Journal: 83(6), pp. 248-255.

Edited by hookahhead
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Rowley, G.D. 1974. Reunion of the genus Echinopsis. A preface to nomenclatural revisions. IOS Bulletin 3: 93–99."

I forgot to include this one in the zip file. I am pretty sure that Keeper Trout or M. S. Smith is solely responsible for tracking it down & uploading it. I owe a giant thank you KT, M. S. Smith, EG, and the rest of the SAB community!

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/57030275/Friedrich_Rowley_1974_IOSBulletin.pdf

Edited by hookahhead
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this HH.

I downloaded some of this stuff from your original postings here and at the shroomery, but haven't had a chance to look at them.

At the time I had considered suggesting that your contribution might be better received if presented in calmer tone and more straight forward manner. I opted not to for various reasons, but am happy to see that you decided to do so on your own.

I look forward to digging into this stuff, though I now have a lot on my plate with all the info that MS and zelly have shared recently too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really looking forward to reading all this. So, what did you conclude? Backeberg is a duck? Britton and rose, a bit confused? Ritter just funked it for everyone? I love discussing this stuff. We should hang out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prier, yup that is pretty much what my research has determined...

Don't let yourself be the next Backeberg! Through my intensive study on the subject I learned a lot about a man many of us are familiar with Curt Backeberg. You may recognize the name due to the "Backeberg" clone, which is now even being called the PC clone because Backeberg likely had nothing to do with it. This is not information I have discovered on my own, I lucked out by having access to information by M.S. Smith and Keepertrout on forums such as this.

While learning more about this "cactus expert", I started to discover something humorous. Backeberg is rejected by the scientific community. Despite publishing huge volumes of text on the subject, and making many excursions into cacti habitat, he is pretty much laughed at. His downfall? He believed that cacti started in central america and radiated north and south, in different lineages. He adamantly held onto this belief despite the compounding evidence against it. Not wanting to admit his folly, he made gross over-generalizations just to make it fit HIS model. Now, over 60 years later molecular phylogenitics prove he was absolutely, without a doubt WRONG.

Scientists aren't that big of assholes though, and normally wouldn't completely reject him for this. However, he failed to submit a single herbarium specimen, therefore none of his work could be confirmed, even if someone wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. So to all of my cacti brethren (and sisters), I beg of you before you make that next post ask yourself, "Am I going to be the next Backeberg?"

Y U Mad Bro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, he failed to submit a single herbarium specimen, therefore none of his work could be confirmed, even if someone wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I've been meaning to respond this this for awhile and now that you have reposted it I will.

While perhaps the criticism of Backeberg is warranted, making herbarium collections of the Cactaceae especially large columnar specimens is to say the least a bitch. Plus traditional herbarium collections provide us with very little useful information especially for deciphering a clade as complex as Echinopsis.

These are so helpful for example:

T. pachanoi

T. cuzcoensis

T. peruvianus

Not!

No point in trashing someone without formal education who has long been dead. So what if he was wrong? We know better and science has moved on. Without collectors and people at least trying to push the boundary we wouldn't be where we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mira I greatly appreciate your criticism and see your point. While I understand the difficulty in preserving what is essentially a drought resistant water balloon, I still have to say herbarium specimen were par for the course at that time and cacti submissions were and still are possible to compose. Had Backeberg submitted at least a few samples at the time, as your pictures show, we could confirm spine morphology, perhaps flower morphology, and even possibly extract DNA or other chemical analysis from his collection. However, with nothing at all to go on, we have nothing to substantiate his claims. He surely sent plenty of seeds home, because if I remember correctly from my research that was his family business.

Plus traditional herbarium collections provide us with very little useful information especially for deciphering a clade as complex as Echinopsis.

I respectfully disagree...
http://www.virtualherbarium.org/vh/100UsesASPT.html

Edited by hookahhead

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
Sign in to follow this  

×