Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
Philocacti

Chavin de huantar clone..........pachanoi????

Question

I'm so confused why this clone is considered to be a pachanoi.

It has long spines, V notches and large areols. All these characteristics describe a peruvianus. However, it's rich green with no glaucinous (at least in my environment).

So why is it seen as a long-spined pachanoi? Is it the length of its flower tubes?

Enlighten me please.

post-6382-0-54029700-1457192789_thumb.jp

post-6382-0-87753500-1457192817_thumb.jp

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Is this from Ogun? I think that mother plant looks intermediate between pachanoi and peruvianus just like many of the plants growing wild around Ancash. This plant certainly doesn't look like a Lima pachanoi but it also doesn't look like a Matucana peruvianus (which is the reference point most people have when talking about that species).

Edited by Caudata
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

yeh im told wild type pachanoi too , i kinda see what you mean about peruvi but just learning those buggers myself too

its definitely unique and loveable , and i think it has the power to go hyperglaukemic /glaukaceouss..nesss or whatever you say for it's blueability/glaukosity ...

I'm sure if it will blu-up , it'll do it in your scorching sunshine and capable hands mate.

took some pics of mine to add if they're any help

post-14443-0-95040200-1457224628_thumb.jpost-14443-0-44220400-1457224667_thumb.jpost-14443-0-76061100-1457224699_thumb.jpost-14443-0-91595400-1457224729_thumb.j

and if it's any consolation i keep seeing peruvianus in the beloved single 1cm spined pachanois knocking about too..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Is this from Ogun? I think that mother plant looks intermediate between pachanoi and peruvianus just like many of the plants growing wild around Ancash. This plant certainly doesn't look like a Lima pachanoi but it also doesn't look like a Matucana peruvianus (which is the reference point most people have when talking about that species).

Yup, Ogun sent me a pup, and what you say makes more sense.

yeh im told wild type pachanoi too , i kinda see what you mean about peruvi but just learning those buggers myself too

its definitely unique and loveable , and i think it has the power to go hyperglaukemic /glaukaceouss..nesss or whatever you say for it's blueability/glaukosity ...

I'm sure if it will blu-up , it'll do it in your scorching sunshine and capable hands mate.

took some pics of mine to add if they're any help

attachicon.gif2016-03-06 00.28.34.jpgattachicon.gif2016-03-06 00.28.42.jpgattachicon.gif2016-03-06 00.28.51.jpgattachicon.gif2016-03-06 00.29.02.jpg

and if it's any consolation i keep seeing peruvianus in the beloved single 1cm spined pachanois knocking about too..

Hahaha, yeah I read this term before; "wild" pachanoi.

Does "wild" describe the spination? Or is it just a term to distinguish it from other "common" pachanoi.

I've had this clone for a little more than 2 years now. The original pup has 2 offshoots and is in a more shaded place than the graft (the pic in the 1st post), which is in full sun. Non of the 2 is showing any glaucinous ;)

It's a unique and beautiful plant, but I just wanted to understand what makes cactophiles label it as pachanoi or "wild" pachanoi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

dnno but taquimbalensis kinda popped into my head more than peru when i saw the spines up close :3

maybe its the longer-than-expected spination? ,

yowie has a nice "wild pachanoi" look

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Looks like you grafted it unto a Cuzco? Maybe that makes it grow differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It's grafted to Stenocereus.

I think grafting on these kind of stocks makes the scion display adult characteristics. At least this is what I'm seeing on Zeus.

Here is Ogun's pic of it in Peru....it has longer spines than mine

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/uploads/monthly_12_2013/post-11286-0-73342600-1386791205.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think I am seeing some glaucusness at the upper part . Makes sense if its an intermediate form

I would be hesitant to label it pachanoi too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

There are some very spiny Pachanois. That said, what you are seeing is basically one of the best arguments for treating Trichocereus pachanoi and Trichocereus peruvianus as just one very variable species. This plant is just one example and there are many more that undoubtedly point towards ONE huge & variable species instead of two that are so similar that it´s only possible to keep them apart by "gut instinct". There are many more plants like this with more or less obvious traits. Where do you want to draw the line? Spine length is a terrible indicator of relativity and the flowers are very similar as well. There just isn´t any base for treating them differently just because the one type has longer spines than the other.

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

one or some hybridisation events leading to stable intermediate form(s) in a genus where species cross easily... hmm....

its like telling sapiens neanderthal and denisovan were no real species, just a big variable one, just because we are a hybrid of them...

I am more interested in whether humans effected the dispersal of magic pachanoi or peruvianus, and if these interventions played a part in the presence of many intermediate forms...

it seems evolution might not follow a tree-like scheme, but rather a web like scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Aren't there some theories that 'pachanoi' was developed by humans as a high-alkaloid, spineless cultivar from a wild peruvianus? In that case, it wouldn't be like a hybrid between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis, more like a 'hybrid' between a wild boar and a feral pig...

I have to admit, I'm fully in favor of the 'one species' theory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Please do not get into the whole alkaloid thing here. Thanks. I am pretty sure it played a part in the distribution of rather spineless specimens and you might actually be right.

Now back to Chavin. In this case we aren´t talking about stable populations. This plant is just one plant in Chavin and there are many others. Some are spiny, some just aren´t. Some are very much like this one and some others are different. Those aren´t stable species but plants that mix wherever they grow together. That means that there is a very low barrier and all those Trichocereus types have been interbreeding since the early days. It is very likely that this Chavin plant was planted because those plants were cultivated for hundreds and thousands of years and it just isn´t possible to know which ones were the first. They are planted all over the Andes and they tend to grow where civilizations are located. It´s obvious that is not an accident.

There are some plants in the wider relationship of the San Pedro group that downright deserve to be regarded as species, but it´s a common fact that many taxonomists have been using a completely wrong interpretation of the term "species" in the early days of the 20th century. An interpretation that was LONG left behind. Trichocereus tarmaensis, Trichocereus quadricostatus, Trichocereus santaensis, Trichocereus pallarensis, Trichocereus tenuispinus, and so on. Those are just a few but there is a pattern.

A large number of those descriptions were only made because some guys were trying to make a name for themselves, by describing as many new species as possible. Those descriptions weren´t based on arguments, just on vague observations of photos or dried flowers or fruits. Sometimes, those descriptions were based on opinions and hearsay. And the people who actually knew those plants from experience in the field (such as Ritter) vehemently defended the one species thing. I don´t even want to call it a theory because I have not the slightest doubt that there are so many different intermediates that it´s obvious that both are so closely related that it makes no sense to keep them apart. The differences between the flowers are really minimal and that is probably the best indicator and tool to judge about relationship. A large part of cactus taxonomy consists of comparing flowers in order to find a pathway between Point A and Point B. Flower comparison in regard to evolution is one of the most important tools in cactus taxonomy because it is more stable than spination or size. Apart from DNA testing of course.

Today´s taxonomy goes towards lumping plants together...and any of those recent discoveries in DNA testing have started a new shift towards the use wider definitions of "species". As an example, it is much more common now to use the category "subspecies" instead of "species" and this is because the new tools of DNA testing showed us how many species were simply based on shaky ground. I am talking about hundreds of species that were not justified and turned out to be nothing but regional forms. This isn´t limited to Trichocereus taxonomy, but it affects it as well. Everyone who looks at the San Pedro group and takes the time to compare the intermediates will see the pattern. Those intermediates are everywhere, but we tend to overlook them or just label them with the species name it is closest to. But that doesn´t mean that some of those plants share a lot of similarities as well. Some people use a system like this to differentiate between Pachanoi and Peruvianus: Strong V-notches...mhhh Pachanoi. Long spines...mhhh Peruvianus. White hairs....PC Pachanoi. Black hairs....Peruvianus or one of the non-PC Pachanoi. Sorry, but it doesn´t work that way. If you actually take a close look at all the descriptions that were written about Tr. pachanoi, you see that the color of hairs on flowers and fruits always was variable and changed between Black and white, depending on who wrote the description.

And honestly, I have yet to hear a reason why Trichocereus pachanoi and Trichocereus peruvianus should not be regarded as the same species. Spine length is of no value in order to differentiate between species and it´s generally accepted that it´s normal to have regional forms or certain individuals that are different, even within a stable population. And the colors of hairs on a flower or a fruit or the spine length are extremely variable, even WITHIN plants that obviously are the same species. The same as the size of the fruits.
So yeah, I am happy to reconsider my opinion about it if I hear a good example of a trait that is an indicator of a good species when it´s about Trichocereus pachanoi and Tr. peruvianus. You know, I mean a species that is justified and not based on gut instinct. Because I spent the past years and can´t come up with a good reason why they should be regarded as two different species. And don´t get me wrong...I know how to differentiate them. I just don´t think that´s how it should be.

And this part about humanoids that Sagi started is off-topic but it´s a great example to show how evolution works.

It is actually very easy to differentiate between certain humanoid species. A trait that was lost during evolution usually doesn´t come back. That means if you have an ape with a tail that spends his life on a tree (let´s call him Ape A) suddenly starts walking upright, grows a bunch of new bones, mates a little bit with all kinds of other humanoids and produces offspring that´s different enough from the Ape A species, you could call it a new species. Ape B. Ape B´s body is very similar to Ape A, but with some important differences. You know, it starts walking upright so maybe Ape B has longer legs and does not have a tail anymore because it wasn´t evolutionary needed after it started walking on two legs. Now there is an upright walking humanoid called APE B that is still obviously related to Apes but is a lot closer to the people that we are today. Now fast forward. That means that every other humanoid that our Archeologists dig out or discover during their expeditions and that still has a tail cannot be a direct descendant of this APE B. It has to be older. Because we know that lost traits that disappeared during evolution do not come back. That´s a fact and it´s a concept that is heavily used to judge between flower evolution in cacti. And that´s how taxonomists determine what may have evolved from what. And there is not one trait between Tr. pachanoi and Tr. peruvianus that could be named which is consistent enough to be used in that concept. Just compare this to us humans in order to make this easier. There are people with black skin, white skin, broad noses, thin noses, large people, small people, long schlongs and short. Yet we all are the same species, aren´t we? How do you get the idea it should be any different with Trichocereus pachanoi and Tr. peruvianus? With plants that are so similar that even specialists have trouble keeping them apart.
We are using a weird definition of species, especially when dealing with the genus Trichocereus. I´ve been growing and studying cacti for 20 years but I still haven´t heard a good trait that could be used to differentiate Tr. macrogonus from Tr. peruvianus. Nonetheless, both names are still in use and describe the same types of plants. And the same applies for Trichocereus pachanoi and Tr. peruvianus. I am open for good arguments, but most of what is discussed is about gut feelings and stuff that someone else said who quoted someone else. There is no taxonomic basis.

The last thing I want to say is that all plants within the Trichocerei are very closely related. Trichocerei does not only stand for the genus Trichocereus, but also includes Haageocereus, Weberbauerocereus and Neobinghamia. It stands for plants that have a flower tube and fruits covered with hairs. I am just mentioning this to point out that all of those plants are closely related in an evolutionary sense and it´s not the case that they have so many unique traits that it´s easy to keep them apart. Botanists have been working on the Trichocerei for a very long time, but they are so similar that it makes it hard to draw a firm line here.

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I am not a hardliner for having more species than we should. A hybrid that becomes a stable population can be regarded a new species, if its new enough to differentiate from other known ones and stable enough to form a distinguishable population. at the end of the day WE ARE ALL HYBRIDS!

humans might be a hybrid resultin from an intense and/or deliberate hybridisation event, just as with trichocerei of pachanoi/peruvianus sector. That doesn't mean the species that played a role in the main hybridisation event werent true species once, just becuase they are now extinct or overhybridised. And also it does't tell us that the hybrid didn't cross again with any of the "original", "pure" species with which they were co-occurent once or more than once ... thats the web-like pattern of evolution as opposed to the tree-like we are more used into thinking

lets have a more fixed example: neanderthal, denisovan and sapiens all derived at some point from erectus, the most archaic homo which probably encompasses habilis too. we suspect sapiens neanderthal and denisovan most probably met, and probably didnt become the best friends as sapiens prevailed. but before that happened, an archaic homo out of africa exodus and the archaic homo seems to have re-crossed in the mixture of the hybridisation event.. again the pattern of the web.

real sapiens, is not the same with what real sapiens once was. its a hybrid , well it used to be a hybrid, but now its the only homo species alive.

why we have so many colours and traits? maybe because the gene pool is from 4 species: old sapiens, neantherthal, denisovan, erectus. We are a hybrid!

TO THE POINT:

differentiating pachanoi and peruvianus, and stating I dont seem to have intermediate forms, maybe just one , so maybe I am judging by too easily having forms that are more like the "true" ones, if there ever were "true ones"

1) glaucousness.. from peruv to macro to glaucus, the blueness is characteristic . pachanois are never so blue, especially in full sun.

2) areoles.... from peruv to macro to glaucus they're bigger, and more protruding than in pachanoi. indeed they are both round shaped.

3) Spines..... peruv macro glaucus are generally spinier... in pachanoi we have long spines only old growth

4) Speed of growth and pupping. pachanois are faster and pup more readily

now, do these consist of good species? beats me, but they're more than enough to distinguish the obviously different phenotypes

PS: this is the strain I told you, which is somewhat intermediate. when very stressed and rootbound in heat it really looks like the PC, but the glaucousness in new growth always differentiated them, and spines where a bit bigger than PC, Alf, Omar. Now this cactus is seriously rootbound and had weeds that where covering / shadowing the pups at the base completely .. Just look at the fucking colour ! a pachanoi would never do that.

and it does validate the arguement that glaucusness is linked with more shade , not more sun , at least in those species

P1150084.jpg

PS2: oh this strain came as Pachanoi "2" from SAB

Edited by sagiXsagi

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

×