Jump to content
The Corroboree
incognito

Pachanoi/pachanot farkin bULLshIT

Recommended Posts

Mutant, I sure do agree. Edible wild mushrooms (whether foraging or cultivating) are WAY more interesting than cacti.

And they are a lot friendlier to handle. I'm very much looking forward to the rain returning!

Incognito, apparently there at least one person who seems to be just as annoyed as you with all of my joking around with Backberg's clone, PC and the pachanot. The contents in the screengrab posted below are pretty nutty. I must be doing something right to get that sort of a rise out of Verne.

This is from an EBay ad but the same material is at the sacredcactus website.

post-900-0-11970600-1408201803_thumb.jpg

As I said before, some people just take plant names too seriously.

When I visited NMCR several years ago, Horst showed me a strongly cresting linage that had been developed from a sport on a monstrose Mammillaria bocasana cv. "Fred".

Horst had been planning on releasing it under the name "Ethel" (until unexpected problems forced them to close their operations).

If people are not having some fun in life and work there is the need for some fine-tuning.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!!!!??!?!! ... this is both funny and interesting... So there are have been Tricho wars in USA since the 90s...

I cannot grasp the meaning of "some people just take plant names too seriously" though, not said by you anyways...

I do take taxonomy as a practical and useful science seriously, dont know if it is too seriously though....

BUT I dont take everyname too seriously...

You have written a whole book focused on a couple species and their names and all that stuff.. The book is certainly written chaotically, but certainly the author (you) doesn't seem like he is taking names lightly, unless you imply this all is a joke, as these names mean nothing after all....

Like I have said, I like to have different strains of the same species and hybrids and all, but after 5 years of growing several Trichocerei, the obsession on them has clearly faded... Like I said in the past growing lots of different species of cacti is more interesting , as is IMO grafting, monsters, other columnar genuses blablabla...

Whats really funny is that the PC pachanoi, ironically has the most names , compared to any other clone/strain.

What I could never understand, is why this clone is not-a-pachanoi... Taxonomically , it is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The San Pedro book is simply what it says it is. My attempt to document what I found in horticulture (largely in the USA) at the time it was written. I agree that its very confused as that is the nature of what existed in the 1990s (the material was initially published as part of the book Sacred Cacti in 1997). A lot better sources of cacti now exist and there is actual academic study occurring again. I've noticed many people don't seem to like what that work is showing but I bet the dust will eventually settle as more work is done.

I did not create the misnomer "Backeberg's clone" but I sure did help to propagate it with the San Pedro book and with Sacred Cacti before it -- quite erroneously. That error seemed worth trying to correct especially as whatever Backeberg collected would have been a better choice of a clone to propagate.

I don't take this very seriously -- just seriously enough to be willing to talk about it but not seriously enough to care if people agree with me or not. Taxonomy is just a set of *opinions* about what words get used to discuss plants; accompanied by suggestions as to how they could be organized. Taxonomy is only marginally a branch of science as cults of personalities, nepotism, turf wars based on instrumentation (my favorite overheard line: "You're not still using data from a Roche, are you?!") or DNA choices, and nontransparent decision making processes are common practices that are openly tolerated.

For want of anything better, I decided to refer to it as PC (for predominate clone - which it is in the USA). When people in Oz pointed out it was not the predominate clone there it was clear to me the name needed abandonment.

That is also when Michael's great question popped up launching my light-hearted commentary. The description for pachanoi deviates from the PC or whatever you prefer to call it.

Hence I jokingly coined "pachanot" when creating the title "Pachanoi or pachanot?"

The question actually should be why IS it a pachanoi? (I suspect it *is* partially a pachanoi.)

Flowers are off of the description (largely white, grey or brownish rather than black hairs and an ovary that is not covered by long black hairs), fruit is also similarly deviant, and it grows with what suggests hybrid vigor. It might be a wild product but no one seems to be able to find them in the wild -- at least not so far.

Lots of speculation could be voiced but at the moment its just a point in need of clarification resulting from a history of poor record availability. We can lament the loss of what might have been a good Trichocereus Monograph (by Hutchison and coworkers) due to Backeberg's rushed publication of Rauh's "Descriptiones Cactacearum Novarum" but nothing can change the past.

At some point DNA work will occur, then maybe something can actually be known.

Its a conundrum though. I've seen you disagree at the notion there are no cactus experts but its actually true. There are many cactus specialists who are most certainly world-class experts, in Echinocereus or Turbinicarpus or Mammillaria or Parodia or Rhipsalis or Coryphantha or in many other genera, but there is no general cactus expert I'm aware of.

Or perhaps the word "expert" needs better definition since experts are supposed to be people who have valid opinions that can be trusted and are intimately familiar with their subject of study.

The people who appear to be the present day experts on Trichocereus are purporting pachanoi and peruvianus to be one species based on their DNA, and I don't see a huge rush of cactus lovers jumping on their bandwagon.

I personally would like those divided as two but also believe what is now recognized as pachanoi and what is recognized as peruvianus needs to be subdivided further based on floristic elements. It makes sense to me they would all share common ancestors though. The question comes up as to what makes something a species or subparts within a single species. This is where both conversations and taxonomy tend to get hung up.

I most often don't tend to invest time discussing whether something is or is not a species unless the person wanting the discussion to occur is willing to define what they mean by species. If that word is not defined, at least in the context of that single conversation, nothing really productive can come from the discussion as its very likely we are talking about different concepts using the same word.

But yes, based on flower and fruit studies I presently suspect that the pachanot is likely to prove to be a hybrid between pachanoi and bridgesii. The flowers overall are actually a bit more towards what is typical on bridgesii than to a bona fide pachanoi. We can go into a lot more detail on that if you like but much of it should be obvious from the images I tried to post in excess in the "pachanoi or pachanot?"commentary.

If I'm wrong, I'm typically open to being shown how and why, and usually am actually welcoming of productive discussions. This is just about a name for a plant so I have no vested stake in any particular outcome.

I'm happy to discuss it further but if so let's find a starting point with known shared terminology between us if we are going to be discussing species.

Hopefully the sample sets capable of answering these questions get run in the not distant future.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Pachanoi X Scopulicola or Bridgesii x Scopulicola?

just curious about your thoughts on that possibility cause it seems just as likely as anything to me

but I wouldnt' know much beyond looks and the color of the floral pubes

there's a scop cross someone posted somwhere that is the spitting image of the PC
i think scop x juuls but im not sure

Edited by Spine Collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say it could not be although on those I've seen scopulicola's texture seems to be well expressed in its hybrids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea personally I'm all for keeping the idea that peruvianus and pachanoi are 2 different species.. There's going to be a blurry line between them - a continuum of traits - but I'm sure that's true with all sorts of plant species - begonias for instance..

The dark blue, spiny, fat type of peruvianus strikes me as very much a different plant that the shortspined pachanoi - think the Icaros variety vs the huarazensis type pachanoi.. In my garden the ""Sharxx Blue" and "Roseii1 and 2" clones from Oz and the "short-spined peruvianus" which I renames "Paradeyes" are on totally different ends of the peruvianus spectrum - with the "Sharxx Blue" and Roseii clones are way more "peruvianus" looking than the Paradeyes clone, with the latter resembling more of a longer spined pachanoi..

--

But yea - the common ancestor issue - problem with that is that all life on earth evolved from little microbes - if you trace the lineage back far enough then everything is related to everything else.. We make distinctions on grand, obvious levels - which "kingdom" something is in - plants vs animals - that's clear enough, but then within each kingdom, the further we subdivide, the blurrier the boundaries get, and by the time you get to the finest distinction, the "species" distinction, there's a lot of boundary blurring indeed..

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two with alot of intermediaries... so far in my short experience i've already noticed that the blues handle heat better though
I realize the best observations can't be made growing them in pots... every plant seems to handle everything better with

rich living soil that is maintained as live soil

common ancestry isn't an issue... simply two plants that adapted to different circumstance or in some cases adapted differently

to the same circumstance... I don't think it matters if the scientists lump them or not cause im pretty sure gardeners will keep them separate in their minds its really quite that simple.. its not like christianity where they show up with swords and force entire regions to forget their own history over time.. more like , fuck you its a pachanoi ,,, laff

its not like everyone has jumped on the echinopsis bandwagon

Edited by Spine Collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea personally I'm all for keeping the idea that peruvianus and pachanoi are 2 different species.. There's going to be a blurry line between them - a continuum of traits - but I'm sure that's true with all sorts of plant species...

The definition of a species is not even agreed upon. Here is one...

"A species is a lineage, a collection of organisms that share a unique evolutionary history and are held together by the cohesive forces of reproduction"

Peruvianus and Pachanoi are genetically "compatible" which is most likely due to a very recent common ancestor but they probably occupied different physical locations - natural habitats - before human intervention which has resulted in a difference in traits. The physical separation of these populations allowed for established separate "reproductive gene pools" which may now be re-mixing due to the physical relocation of specimens by humans.

Edited by AZS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funniest part to me (and why its really hard to want to take this all too seriously) is that botany bases much on the concept of "species" and yet not only is there no widely accepted definition (at least in botany), whenever I've asked PhD botanists (including Myron Kimnach) for a definition of species every single one of them has loudly laughed. Of the dozen or so professional botanists who I've asked that question, only David Cameron has been willing and able to provide an actual definition -- which was an idiosyncratic and multidimensional one that went way beyond most people's basic concepts. (As does much of that particular man's brilliance.)

One would think that a system that uses a unit of subdivision and classification would want to have the unit defined or at least definable in a way that exists in the real world?

As far as I've seen so far there appear to be few Trichocereus species that *can't* successfully pollinate each other and produce viable offspring (not just the pachanoi or peruvianus sorts but everything from andalgalensis through chiloensis and terscheckii can be successfully thrown into the mix). I actually don't know of any of the described species that have been proven not to be able to do so.

Many, (perhaps most or all?), can also readily pollinate Echinopsis, Lobivia, Chamaecereus and a decent number of other genera. One of the more beautiful ones I've seen was Echinopsis multiceps X Trichocereus terscheckii.

Successful intergeneric hybrids (both artificial and natural) are fairly common in the Cactaceae in addition to interspecific hybrids.

Agreed on the Type for peruvianus (ie the Rio Rimac sort) deserving recognition. Not just separate from pachanoi but separate from the roughly similar forms that occur east of there around Tarma.

Of course that does bring us back to that pesky lack of an agreed definition for the word species. Depending on how that word is defined either all of pachanoi and peruvianus belong inside of one species with additional subdivisions into at least two subspecies with two or more varieties in each, or they should be kept as separate species with further subdivisions.

I'm still of the opinion that if people want to be discussing whether something is or is not a species or if two things are a single species or separate species, it is fairly pointless to want to do so without there being an agreed upon definition of "species". Even if a tentative working definition was created for sake of a single conversation it would be better than the current situation that always reminds me of the story of the four proverbial blind men trying to describe an elephant based on what they could touch.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow I did not know that - no clear definition of a "species." That is surprising because usually the sciences are good at creating operational definitions of things, because there's so much scrutiny and peer review and logic/rational thought used that if there's an obvious issue people call attention to it pretty quickly...

If they dispensed with the term species though it sounds like people would just used another word like "type" or "variety" or "race" or whatever else to convey the basic sentiment that "we think those two are different enough to warrant a formal distinction."

Apparently the same issue is going on with the term "race" as used for humans - biologists and sociologists have been saying that there isn't really such thing as "race" within humans - it's a sociopolitical distinction - certainly among humans we have phenotypes but we're all the same homo sapien..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two problems exist, the first is the most interesting to me, that being the concept we call "species" is almost always a work-in-progress rather than a finished product. We get what are essentially mere snapshots based on the time period in which we are alive to see them.

Species are not the simple result of inherited genetics, stablized hybrids and random mutations. There are several routes of interactive feedback with environmental factors that appears to be responsible for fine-tuning the relationships of species with their local environment.

The second is that in zoology there is a nice and clean definition that defines species to be those animals that are so closely related that they can successfully breed with each other and produce viable & fertile offspring. Its a tricky and in many ways arbitrary picture when one sets out to decide how to tweak that to fit plants as if it was applied intact to botany not just species but genera start to collapse..

Don't confuse this with the "race" issue as that is actually something quite different. That is a political movement driven by people who don't understand the concept of biological races and are wanting to eliminate the word "race" due to the outdated notion of "social races". Its not a scientifically driven move if you will dig beneath its veneer. Basically we are being told that it is politically incorrect to use the word race and we should now choose the word ethnicity. I've noticed that biologists in general don't buy this and the people who are most loudly promoting it are anthropologists and social scientists. However, its become a political hot potato that can be dangerous to speak openly about in academia without finding oneself being damned as a racist or even finding one's employment compromised. Just like with the assorted sweeping taxonomic changes every few years, its typically easier to just accept the new word dictates than to argue against them.

The comment "certainly among humans we have phenotypes but we're all the same homo sapien" can commonly be found in the arguments directed against the concept of human races and yet if you ponder it I would suggest that it does not actually make sense much less negate the notion of race. When a biologist refers to the taxon race the differences between them are at most going to be those of simple phenotypes.

The genetic differences between the races of any animal are by definition trivial, that is why they are considered to be races rather than meriting being viewed as different species, subspecies, varieties, subvarieties, forms, or subforms.

My favorite defense online of the incorrectness of the notion of races pointed out that the differences between the human races is much less than the difference between chimpanzees and orangutans. Which are not simply different species but in different genera.

Its also said in those arguments that no meaningful biological differences exist, to the point of proponents actually attacking good work showing significant differences in drug metabolism existing between races/ethnicities. In an editorial in Nature Genetics the author actualy blasted the results due to it causing doctors to discriminate against their black patients by denying them the drugs this study showed not to work. They also seemed horrified that a company was developing heart medication for black people and planned to market it as being for black people.

I'd suggest another way to view this is that based on growing clinical evidence a study was undertaken that demonstrated some types of heart medications are not effective in black people, doctors who wanted to help their patients listened so started trying to provide appropriately effective medications and the pharmaceutical industry responded with R&D to create medications that work. That all seems like a positive medical advance to me rather than racial discrimination!

Its also peculiar this only seems to be attacked when it relates to black people rather than to asian people. Among the racial differences that have emerged is a far greater sensitivity of people of asian descent compared to caucasians when administered some mind drugs like propanolol. Learning that an effective dose can be as low as 1/10th what they had been prescriibed in the "color blind" model was very much welcomed news as positive progress towards effective drug dosaging with fewer side effects.

I would suggest that the offending problem is not really due to recognizing differences but rather in ranking them with assigned value judgements.

This is a topic that deserves its own thread as it is divergent here.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe it should have its own thread but when I mentioned that I certainly didn't mean for it to go that in depth regarding race lol

so maybe i'll just go with "tribes"....

Ashkenazis and Syrians, Same nose, different tribes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has turned into an awesome convo :) thanks for your input trucha I had no idea you coined those names :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incognito - Coined isn't quite the right word.

I'm not sure where "Backeberg's clone" arose. I'd heard it kicking around for years before putting it in print (erroneously).

When I presented PC and pachanot it was simply for want of anything better to use to refer to them. Whenever both were introduced I actually stated neither one was intended to be or become its name, I just needed something to be able to use in its discussion.

I probably should have called it "Joey".

And Spine Collector, you are probably closer to accuracy when viewing them akin to tribes although most of what people consider tribal societies are not. Most primitive groups are group and band based. To be tribal requires both organization and always has a chief. Most of the North American indigenous cultures were group based and joined together as bands only when more labor was needed. In a band a leader is appointed for that task (whether mass harvesting or waging war) but their recogniztion as a leader is temporary and ends when the band breaks back up into groups.

Its a Western-cultural imposition that causes us to think of tribes first as the invaders wanted to deal with a single representative (AKA the Chief) rather than a group of individuals so refused to recognize anything but tribes. (Hence all the trouble we now have with the "federally recognized tribe" restriction that still excludes many indigenous groups of people.)

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...although most of what people consider tribal societies are not. Most primitive groups are group and band based. To be tribal requires both organization and always has a chief. Most of the North American indigenous cultures were group based and joined together as bands only when more labor was needed. In a band a leader is appointed for that task (whether mass harvesting or waging war) but their recogniztion as a leader is temporary and ends when the band breaks back up into groups.

Its a Western-cultural imposition that causes us to think of tribes first as the invaders wanted to deal with a single representative (AKA the Chief) rather than a group of individuals so refused to recognize anything but tribes. (Hence all the trouble we now have with the "federally recognized tribe" restriction that still excludes many indigenous groups of people.)

probably one of the best examples we have of quite successful anarchism & voluntary association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where "Backeberg's clone" arose. I'd heard it kicking around for years before putting it in print (erroneously).

When I presented PC and pachanot it was simply for want of anything better to use to refer to them. Whenever both were introduced I actually stated neither one was intended to be or become its name, I just needed something to be able to use in its discussion.

I probably should have called it "Joey".

I thought from what I've read from Smith and that backberge is a normal pachanoi while PC (which you named pachanot) is a clone in the US and people called it the backberge clone.

From your quote now it seems you're differentiating between PC and pachanot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. All three names referred to one plant.

I meant only (and literally) that:

"When I presented PC and pachanot it was simply for want of anything better to use to refer to them. Whenever both were introduced I actually stated neither one was intended to be or become its name, I just needed something to be able to use in its discussion."

The use of "Backeberg's clone" in print came first and proved to be in error which I attempted to correct.

Backeberg claimed that he was responsible for pachanoi's introduction but I do not believe it to be a valid claim by him. Around a handful of other people brought pachanoi into horticulture in the same time frame. Blossfeld did so in a big way in 1935. Whatever the case NO ONE anywhere preserved Backeberg's pachanoi seperate from anyone else's so there IS no such thing in horticulture as "Backeberg's clone."

However, when the phrase has been used it has, as far as I know, historically always been applied to what was later called the PC or pachanot. For most cactus lovers in the USA there was, by comparison, almost nothing else available until fairly recent years. Others could be found with enough searching but typically required a person to physically be in California.

The use of PC came next, mostly out of laziness as I simply grew tired of writing out "the predominate clone of pachanoi". That too was abandoned following complaints it was not the predominate clone everywhere.

Pachanot followed but was offered jokingly.

Neither one was presented to be its name and as mentioned it was actually stated that neither was intended to become its name. That part was obviously ignored by a number of people.

An illustrated discussion and the history of this is at:

http://www.largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/LAIM/pedro/pedro.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trucha do u think that three different pachanoi, each seed grown not cuttings, could look just like a PC or pachanot, considering genetic variation. It is not impossible, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

down to the floral hairs? probably not

alot of them look alike tho, thats how it got mislabeled imo

we all know that the real true Pachanizzle was imported by Cactus Kate... duh ppl

I know you didn't ask me but lol

Edited by Spine Collector
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incognito,

sure that might happen in terms of the vegetative features but having identical flowers is less likely.

Simple morphology is unreliable for identification. Flowers are more clear or at least that is the notion in botany. The maxim is that if flowers are identical the plants are the same species.

One thing I've noticed to be consistent is that seed grown pachanoi tend to be spinier. I've seen some grow short spined plants but they have been the minority.

One feature supporting the pachanot/PC being of a hybrid origin is the range of appearances for its F1s when it is used in making crosses. Clearly somewhere in its parentage was a plant that had long and yellow spines.

A particularly nice and illuminating look can be found in its crossings with Juul's. Compare those with the results from the crossing of Juuls and peruvianus.

I believe there are abundant images posted on this forum in years past but if not locateable let me know and I can post more.

Spine Collector,

the one thing wrong with Cactus Kate importing her plants is that she did not.

According to Verne's account she obtained her plants from "a famous botanist" who was curiously left unnamed. That would not suggest importation (and if SHE was its origin she would have started with a seed).

I'm betting her point of acquisition was one of the big growers around Vista (which during the 1960s included one semifamous botanist - Paul Hutchison). She was only one of many cactus producers who was growing that plant.

The Vista area growers are where (limiting this comment to the USA growers) everyone else's original source appears to point towards. And they are still cranking out literal tonnage of new cuttings every year.

Its grown to become a fairly small list of candidates but my presently limited resources have not permitted me to follow through on narrowing it further yet. A week or two spent in S. Cal might actually be able to do it at this point.

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

×