id request

[andean_dreamer]

While in Ecuador, in the mountain city Riobamba, I collected

some specimens of a columnar cactus which vaguely resembles

a T. Pachanoi. It grows tall (20-30 ft?) and branches readily.

Its ribs have a more rounded profile than T.P. and there are

distinct creases at each aerole although I believe these to be

pronounced due to dehydration. In the established specimens,

they may have been more like depressions than creases.

If an ID is forthcoming I would be interested in the alkaloid profile.

thanks

a_d

[Ashoka]

Very cool plant. Maybe this page: http://www.columnar-cacti.org/ can help you a bit.

[mr toodly]

I like this plant very much. It reminds me of some of my post-corn cob turds.

[Gunter]

That plant is very interesting, I want to hear what Smith has to say about it.

My opinion however is that you are showing pictures of the real T pachanoi as described by Britton and Rose.

All of the pieces fit rather well in my opinion.

Read the original descriptions here

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...ype=post&id=325

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...ype=post&id=326

B&R named T pachanoi and have the final word on what it is, the plant you show fits their description more than any other I have ever seen that was claimed to be T pachanoi.

Do you have pictures of what you consider T. pachanoi from Ecuador that differ from this?

If so I would like to see them and compare them to the original description.

[M S Smith]

Hey andean dreamer, is this a plant that is fully naturalized and has an obvious presence over a particular region to the exclusion of other Trichocereus species? Or is it an anomaly in the area either by not having a prevalent population of naturalized plants and not having a dominant presence?

Could it be a current introduction is what I am asking? If it is a more naturalized species it would both have a prominent presence in a region and not be overrun by other Trichocereus, specifically by the standard T. pachanoi clone we all know well enough. This particularly since T. pachanoi is the only Trichocereus that has been described as a native of Ecuador.

It's a very nice plant and fits into plants I have sort of accounted for as having somewhat intermediary (hybrid) aspects between T. pachanoi of Ecuador and the T. peruvianus (T. macrogonus) of central Peru, and which I have long referred to as "short spined T. peruvianus" due to the fact that I was the one who introduced the plant to the ethnobotanical community (by pointing out its differences from standard T. pachanoi rather than spreading the plant myself) and the plant was originally passed on to me simply as T. peruvianus. I made the addition of "short spined" myself to differentiate the plant from the commonly cultivated T. peruvianus, a plant known to have longer spines, this no matter which plant in the confusing mess we may now consider T. peruvianus, the "T. peruvianus/macrogonus" of the Matucana region, or the T. peruvianus KK242 (T. cuzcoensis?) which matches T. cuzcoensis, and has yet to be found in Matucana even thoguh it was originally described from that region. As both Archaea and I are well aware, there were numerous traditional cultures in this section of the Andes between these two areas, and that plants might have been carried back and forth and interbreed is likely.

Archaea and I differ in regards to which plant in collections today meets the Britton & Rose descriptions of T. pachanoi. I hold that the common T. pachanoi in collections today is that which was described by B&R. Archaea holds the opinion that the plant traditionally regarded as the "short spined T. peruvianus" is the original B&R T. pachanoi. Though Archaea holds the "short spined" plants generally as fitting the B&R description, an observation of the "short spined" plants (which range apparently from Ecuador to central Peru) will show that the spines are longer (5 cm+)and a more horn color than those described by B&R for T. pachanoi. These longer spines develope on more mature sections quite consistently and the red/horn color is on the new spines, this just as much as the "dark yellow to brown" spines decribed by B&R are also only on the new formed spines.

One of the most interesting comments in the B&R description is "spines often wanting," meanign of course the plant often lacks spines. I am very interested if in you observations of larger plants such as those photos showed such a lack. I am still open to Archaeae's ideas on this, and haven't ruled out such possibilities as those he mentions, but I would certainly like more information, as I'm sure he would. (Hi Archaea!)

Any other photos of Trichocereus plants in Ecuador are much desired. I am particularly interested in which plants are the common ones of the region and which ones appear to have less of a presence.

~Michael~

[Gunter]

I think the small spine peruvianus is closer to T pachanoi (B&R) than the Backeberg clone. I do want to note however that I do not hold the 'short spine' peruvianus Mike introduced to be the same plant as the 'small spine' peruvianus. I believe the one Mike introduced is a likely hybrid. The plant I call the 'small spine' peruvianus seems to hail from Peru and is reminiscent of the Torres & Torres clone from northern Chile. The 'small spine' (and the Torres) seem to have very little glaucous bloom and grow a deep dark green, they are also narrower than T peruvianus, being narrower than KK242 cuzconoids and macrogonoids alike.

Dreamer, I want to say that I think that plant you have shown us above is in my opinion closer to the B&R description for T pachanoi than anything I have seen before. Of course I can be wrong and I am just a Trichocereus hobbyist. I do know the plant you show is one I would love to get a cutting of.

I sure would dig debating this topic in Ecuador someday…

Mike you might notice my opinion on this topic is not quite the same as it was previously, though it is not that different yet either.

I would love to see the Rev, Trout, Gusto and all the other Trichophiles weigh in.

[apothecary]

*turns thread tracking on and leans back to watch*

[Pisgah]

*turns thread tracking on and leans back to watch*

Ditto. Have at 'er boys. I thought it looked like a Juuls, but I'll sit back and watch this one play out.

[M S Smith]

Sorry to be one to disappoint Apothecary, but this isn't E&D.

~Michael~

[gusto]

I won't attempt to say that this is an archetypal example of the true pachanoi, but it's quite a curious clone for sure. Don't think I've ever seen a plant with such well defined creases both between the areoles, and vertically between the ribs. Kinda reminds me of the SS04 without all the spines, or yeah even moreso an ear of corn.

Wonder if it'll maintain this habit when grown outside it's native area? The areole spacing looks really compressed too, without the plant looking very dehydrated. Keep us updated with photos of the new growth once the cutting takes off.

[andean_dreamer]

Archaea, Michael,

I would say that the specimen I collected is typical of the area, and in no

way an anomaly. The spination is certainly variable and the smaller of the

two shown is practically without spines. Were any of the large specimens

without spines - it is hard to say. Since these seemed to be fairly common

in that area I wasn't really in data collection mode. I suppose I was expecting

identification to be a bit more cut and dried. It is rapidly becoming clear that it is a

bit more messy than that. I wish I had better data. I don't currently have plans

to visit Ecuador in the near future so I am unable to do further observation. The

next time I am there I will definitely be documenting the variations in that area. (Riobamba)

On a purely speculative note, if these cacti had ceremonial uses for the Inca, who

were well organized with an empire running up and down the Andes, it stands to reason

that they would not only select for desirable traits (say short spines) but would also spread

their favorite variaties throughout their territory. I wonder if something similar is still occuring

today. I found my specimens in an empty lot where someone had dumped a number of rather

large cuttings. Of course someone may have trimmed their ornamental and just dumped the

waste, but I found dumped cuttings in more than one empty lot. I am fascinated by this topic

and how much is unknown or uncertain. I get the feeling that this would be a fruitful area of

research.

[Gunter]

On a purely speculative note, if these cacti had ceremonial uses for the Inca, who

were well organized with an empire running up and down the Andes, it stands to reason

that they would not only select for desirable traits (say short spines) but would also spread

their favorite variaties throughout their territory.

I think that is how several populations came to be where they are, like the Torres clone for example. Mike has pointed out to me that a large amount distribution has taken place in the last century as well, and this has had an effect on the biodiversity of these plants.

I would say that the specimen I collected is typical of the area, and in no

way an anomaly. The spination is certainly variable and the smaller of the

two shown is practically without spines. Were any of the large specimens

without spines - it is hard to say.

Sometimes pretty much without spines? Deep horizontal depressions over the areoles? Typical of the area which is in Ecuador?

The B&R description of T pachanoi says "spines often wanting" It says when they are present there are few (3-7) they are unequal, with the longest 1-2 cm, they are also said to be dark yellow to brown. I cannot see the spines so well, do they contrast with that description?

It says ribs are broad at the base and obtuse.

Did older material such as lower down on large plants look dark green and less blue/glaucous?

The more I think about it the more I stand by my assertion you have given us a pictoral example of the true T pachanoi described by Britton and Rose almost a century ago. I know this goes against the consensus of many cultivators and I may be wrong about it, but in my mind it makes perfect sense.

I am not aware of a plant that fits the B&R description better.

[M S Smith]

Rio Bambo is the capital of Chimborazo province and in basically at the geographic center of Ecuador and approximatley 120 km north of the B&R T. pachanoi of Cuenca.

latitude 01 37S

longitude 078 40W

Here is the "short spined T. peruvianus." Do the mature plants in Ecuador look at all like this? I noticed the areoles on this plant compared to yours appear to be further apart.

More later.

~Michael~

[Rev]

I have nothing to contribute except that this cactus is beautiful

My enthusiasm far exceeds my knowledge on this matter still

if i can keep it up then one day i will have a collection (of Lit and cacti) of high enough callibre, and ill take a few trips to SA, then i may weigh in

till then i only know what i have in front of me

im takin notes

i just installed google earth so itll be cool to zoom in on these collection sites now.... and build my travel plan...

[M S Smith]

Archaea, you may be onto something, and I apologize if I may have belittled your contribution in the past. I'm glad you've stuck to your guns on this. I suppose my philosophical training leads me in the direction that a new proposal must first have the necessary support to eradicate the common.

After playing around with some searches I found two sites with Trichocereus from Ecuador which certainly lend some credence to your analysis regarding T. pachanoi as understood from the B&R descriptions. The first link isn't as supportive, but is interesting all the same as the plant looks quite a bit more in line with the Juul's Giant than T. pachanoi (Backeberg clone) or the so-called "short spined T. peruvianus. I wish there were better photos to confirm it as a Juul's as this would help better understand the realtion of this plant to others.

The second link is the killer though. It is of a Ecuaorian "T. pachanoi" which interestingly enough is photographed by the deceased Tim Plowman, a fellow Harvard grad and explorer friend of E. Wade Davis. It is clearly not the standard T. pachanoi we all know and love, but is rather quite a bit like the T. pachanoi of Kimnach, but dissimilar to some degree, though certainly close in lineage, to the "short spined T. peruvianus." This photo by Plowman certainly would fall into the B&R description, even in the spines being "wanted." It is somewhat lacking the "horizontal depression," but this plant is fully swollen and these marks do stretch out amost to be only recognized by a dark horizontal line without depression.

You likely right in your assessment that the T. pachanoi of Britton & Rose is not the T. pachanoi of Backeberg. The question now becomes one of what is the T. pachanoi "Backeberg clone" we all know and love so much. Is the Backeberg clone a different species all together, or is it just a clone of the B&R T. pachanoi. I'm inclined to think in review of this information that it might be a little further seperated.

If you are staying in touch with Trout a little more than I have please pass this thread link on to him for me.

Here's the pictures:

http://www.ecuador-images.net/plant.cactus.htm

http://fm2.fieldmuseum.org/plantguides/res...enus=Echinopsis

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Here's a Juul's in flower. Compare it to the plant in the first link. Photo by our friend Flip.

~Michael~

[Gunter]

I think that the Backeberg could be a unique T pachanoi example, now ubiquitous but atypical.

If I took a single unique and desirable seedling, selected because it was unique, and then introduced it into cultivation and it became propagated for over 60 years to the point where it reached a minimum of millions of existing cuttings, then it would be only natural for people at some point in time to think of it as a more definitive example than it is. That is not to say it can’t be a pachanoi rather it just seems novel to me, though it is certainly the standard example of what we think is T pachanoi in the states.

That first link is pretty Kimnachy ( Kimnachy= ), and the depressions over the areoles although not deep are significant. I would expect that all of the traits would vary to a degree. Some plants having spines of a slightly different color, some plants less glaucous while others are mores so, some plants having deeper horizontal indentations, others having shallower ones and so on and so forth. When several traits are aberrant though then I think it is time to consider a possible alternative identity and the available evidence.

However that second link, hmm wow. I think it is close to an ancestral variation similar to 'small spine' and Torres. If that is the case then we have seen examples of or rather descendants of a single species that was distributed in Peru, Chile and Ecuador and possibly other locations.

I may still be wrong, but I love the topic anyway. I think you are right that hybrids can also give plants like the one you showed in the above post. Things like the vascular bundle and the width of the 'short spine' plant suggest to me it could well be a hybrid between a pachanoi and a peruvianus/macrogonus or some other plant.

I am beginning to think that speciation has/is taking place to a large enough degree that there may be a couple and perhaps a few if not more species/subspecies than I had previously thought. As far as pachanoid plants there seems to be a single type emerging that may be exemplified by the Torres clone, then there are the regional variations from isolation and intermediates as well. Something about the Backeberg pachanoi reminds me a little bit of scop, but I am not sure I can articulate what that is quite yet.

I think that we should take a close look at the progeny of crosses involving the Backeberg clone and see if we can't pick up on what it may be contributing and be able to get some nice clues about what genes it may contain.

Why is it I think that as we move towards increased clarity in regard to the Trichocereus picture we are bound to find much more confusion along the way? Sometimes even a mistaken assertion can provide lots of information when it is falsified, so I have continued to think (in posts) about the whole pachanoi thing despite the fact many of my thoughts about it may be wrong. Someone once mentioned to me that one of the best ways to test ideas is to articulate them and expose them to potential criticism. I think his name was Michael. ;)

[Salvi]

The first T. pachanoi I ever purchased looks very similar to the second picture.

It proved to be quite a hardy clone.

Keep in mind that this picture shows them when they haven't been watered for a couple of months.

[M S Smith]

I think that the Backeberg could be a unique T pachanoi example, now ubiquitous but atypical.

If I took a single unique and desirable seedling, selected because it was unique, and then introduced it into cultivation and it became propagated for over 60 years to the point where it reached a minimum of millions of existing cuttings, then it would be only natural for people at some point in time to think of it as a more definitive example than it is. That is not to say it can’t be a pachanoi rather it just seems novel to me, though it is certainly the standard example of what we think is T pachanoi in the states.

For this to be the case then you must account for at least one thing; was the Backeberg clone a “single unique and desirable seedling,” in Backeberg’s opinion, or did he collect from an area in which the clone we typically know as T. pachanoi “Backeberg clone” was prevalent to a degree more than it being a unique “seedling,” something your wording would indicate was a single plant. I am not certain of this point in your arguments as I see nothing to suggest that it was a particularly odd seedling among others, from the same fruit, that would have grown more to the form we see in the Tim Plowman photo.

That first link is pretty Kimnachy ( Kimnachy= ), and the depressions over the areoles although not deep are significant. I would expect that all of the traits would vary to a degree. Some plants having spines of a slightly different color, some plants less glaucous while others are mores so, some plants having deeper horizontal indentations, others having shallower ones and so on and so forth. When several traits are aberrant though then I think it is time to consider a possible alternative identity and the available evidence.

As I stated before, I don’t find the first photo at all like the Kimnach plant, but rather more like the Juul’s giant. I find the Plowman plant much more like the Kimnach.

However that second link, hmm wow. I think it is close to an ancestral variation similar to 'small spine' and Torres. If that is the case then we have seen examples of or rather descendants of a single species that was distributed in Peru, Chile and Ecuador and possibly other locations.

I’d feel pretty certain that the Torres & Torres plant is an introduction to Chile as Chile is not know for these sorts of Trichocereus at all, nor is the environment conducive to these sorts of plants as is obvious from the others species of Chile which grow significantly different in form from those of northern Peru, of which the Torres & Torres is similar. I of course would be interested in the provenance of the plant when located by Torres & Torres and if it was growing alongside human habitation or if it had a distinct and naturally occurring population ranging over at least more than an area immediately surround man. I am inclined to believe that the environment of that area would not be hospitable to seed germination of this sort of Trichocereus due to its aridity.

I may still be wrong, but I love the topic anyway. I think you are right that hybrids can also give plants like the one you showed in the above post. Things like the vascular bundle and the width of the 'short spine' plant suggest to me it could well be a hybrid between a pachanoi and a peruvianus/macrogonus or some other plant.

I’m still leaning towards the influence of the Icaros sort of T. peruvianus (T. macrogonus) being a contributor to many of these short/small spined forms due to similarities to in rib formation and spine color, and due to the fact that the small/short spined plants due often produce spines of longer length. I also think the Backeberg clone T. pachanoi being somewhat further removed from the small/short spined plants that might be assumed simply based upon spine length.

I am beginning to think that speciation has/is taking place to a large enough degree that there may be a couple and perhaps a few if not more species/subspecies than I had previously thought.

Unfortunately I think you continue to have a misunderstanding of what is happening here. It is not speciation that is happening, but rather de-speciation. I’ve outlined on numerous occasions the process of speciation. I will use a single population of one progenitor species as an example. This original species would be isolated from other of its genus and would have over time become quite singular in its growth habits as with inbreeding populations would become more genetically identical over time, such as with cheetahs for example. The lack of genetic diversity would mean the species become more singular.

So you would eventually have outcroppings of different species in different areas, all of which came from a common progenitor gene. But when this progenitor was carried to outlying areas, through animals in most cases, it would then interbreed within its own populations and not those of it progenitor. Then the genes of the these two populations would continue to survive and adapt to their environmental conditions according to natural selection. The difference in the environments would continue to select certain traits for survival, and therefore the genes of the progenitor and its removed offspring would no longer develop along the same genetic lines towards less genetic diversity, but would each do so only within their limited population of interbreeding plants.

So here you would have two distinct species over time, in two different locals, that reflected different traits due to their adaptation to their differing environments.

The reason why I argue that de-speciation is happening is because man is importing into areas of genetic standardization of one species those of another. By doing so the standardization is upset by a new gene pool, and though this is no doubt in many case good for the diversity and survival of the species, the plants now in a particular area are interspersed with those of another, and in my estimation the formation of the species wouldn’t occur until the population regained genetic standardization. Hybrids certainly are not simply a “species,” and species should not be defined until a population has a certain degree of uniformity.

For example, if you carried Mules into the territory of Zebras you wouldn’t address the new crosses as a new species at all, but rather as hybrids. But should the Mules and Zebras as independent species be eliminated from the territory and the only surviving animals were the crosses, and the crosses become more and more uniform over millennia then you would start to call them a new species. On occasion we can even say that a Mule or Zebra from a territory outside straggles into the “Mubras” range and mate with them, but you wouldn’t call the hybrid between the Mule or Zebras simply a Mulbra, but rather a hybrid of what then would be considered to distinct species.

Now going back and applying this to cactus I would say that should a Trichocereus be brought into the range of another that is distinct from it and interbreed the offspring wouldn’t at all be new species, but rather just hybrids. But should the interloper contribute its genes to the pool of another then over time we could see the development of a new species when the original population. This of course is only the case if both of those that contributed to the mix continued to live outside of this mixed territory and retain their species classification. But the mix would have been of both these other species, therefore when it is no longer like these due to a standardization of its genetics it would in all likelihood have to take on some sore of classification that would either make it a new species, or else a subspecies or variation dependent upon which of the two species was more predominately represented.

It should be noted in this discussion that a species isn’t a species unless it has a distinct range in which it grows, and is of somewhat standardized genetics, as represented in its growth habits. Man it appears has so thoroughly distorted the slow process of speciation by intermixing plants that though speciation would eventually occur should man stop the continued introduction of plants from one area to the next the species are going to gradually disappear and leave us with a population of hybrid plants. Once man is out of the picture the process would slow down considerably and true speciation would be able to occur again through the standardization of genetic traits within isolated and distinct populations. But until then we are likely only going to get more and more hybrids, particularly if the interest in Trichocereus continues, as I’m sure it will.

As far as pachanoid plants there seems to be a single type emerging that may be exemplified by the Torres clone, then there are the regional variations from isolation and intermediates as well. Something about the Backeberg pachanoi reminds me a little bit of scop, but I am not sure I can articulate what that is quite yet.

I am far from supporting any idea that T. pachanoi fall particularly close to scopulicola. T. scopulicola when viewed in the light of my above comments is in my estimates a very genetically consistent plant, something that might indicate little disturbance from man, and therefore that it probably wasn’t used entheogenically. It is quite some distance from the main areas of traditional entheogenic use of Trichocereus. I haven’t seen any evidence that there was any traditional use of T. scopulicola at all and there is very little that supports much traditional cultic use of T. bridgesii. T. bridgesii certainly appears to have some traditional and recreational use today, but there doesn’t appear to be any cultic use surrounding the species such as we see in Peru, particularly in its archeological record.

I think that we should take a close look at the progeny of crosses involving the Backeberg clone and see if we can't pick up on what it may be contributing and be able to get some nice clues about what genes it may contain.

T. pachanoi Backeberg clone hybrids quite accurately reflect T. pachanoi traits. I haven’t been able to pick up on anything besides the T. pachanoi and what it was crossed with.

Why is it I think that as we move towards increased clarity in regard to the Trichocereus picture we are bound to find much more confusion along the way? Sometimes even a mistaken assertion can provide lots of information when it is falsified, so I have continued to think (in posts) about the whole pachanoi thing despite the fact many of my thoughts about it may be wrong. Someone once mentioned to me that one of the best ways to test ideas is to articulate them and expose them to potential criticism. I think his name was Michael. ;)

If it wasn’t for the confusion I wouldn’t devote as much time to them. But I am little troubled in the end, as I do see the de-speciation due to man as the reason for much of what we see today. I have my ideas though about what at more traditional species, and what seems to be the product of the crosses. But no doubt even if I can settle on what were “true” species, and what are crosses I can not discount the fact that both the true species and the crosses continue due to the actions mans interference to evolve at a rate they likely wouldn’t naturally. It is truly all a mess and with continued expansion of people, and people who like to collect cacti, the term species will only be able to be applied to those Trichocereus that continue to be hidden in Darkest Peru.

~Michael~

[Gunter]

Nice post Mike! I found it quite stimulating.

For this to be the case then you must account for at least one thing; was the Backeberg clone a “single unique and desirable seedling,”

I do recall something about him selecting it, likely as a seed grown plant, due to its uniqueness. I'll look for more evidence of this, but I think Trout mentioned it here a few months back.

As I stated before, I don’t find the first photo at all like the Kimnach plant, but rather more like the Juul’s giant. I find the Plowman plant much more like the Kimnach.

Yeah, I don’t see that.

I’d feel pretty certain that the Torres & Torres plant is an introduction to Chile as Chile is not know for these sorts of Trichocereus at all, nor is the environment conducive to these sorts of plants as is obvious from the others species of Chile which grow significantly different in form from those of northern Peru, of which the Torres & Torres is similar.

I agree it is an introduction, it is in the territory of the Inca and seems to have been collected near an ancient road. But I don't think of Peru as a separate region to that of Bolivia or much of Chile, or Ecuador and Argentina for that matter, all of which fit into the Inca nation and all areas of which now have entheogenic Trichocereus examples, I believe from introduction. I think the original location of the plant(s) was likely near Tiwanako, but that Northern Peru/ Ecuador is also a likely area.

I’m still leaning towards the influence of the Icaros sort of T. peruvianus (T. macrogonus) being a contributor to many of these short/small spined forms due to similarities to in rib formation and spine color, and due to the fact that the small/short spined plants due often produce spines of longer length.

I want to reiterate I view the short spine and the small spine to be separate and distinct plants. I think the MG 'small spine' is normal/typical form of Peruvian pachanoi and the MS 'Short spine' is a likely intermediate.

Unfortunately I think you continue to have a misunderstanding of what is happening here. It is not speciation that is happening, but rather de-speciation…

I am quite familiar with the mechanisms of speciation from vascular plant taxonomy, (I talk with my professor about Trichocereus taxonomy quite often and he has a few plants now as well) but I am not sure I agree here.

The reason why I argue that de-speciation is happening is because man is importing into areas of genetic standardization of one species those of another. By doing so the standardization is upset by a new gene pool, and though this is no doubt in many case good for the diversity and survival of the species, the plants now in a particular area are interspersed with those of another, and in my estimation the formation of the species wouldn’t occur until the population regained genetic standardization. Hybrids certainly are not simply a “species,” and species should not be defined until a population has a certain degree of uniformity.

Intermediates do not a species make, however intermediates in isolated populations do undergo speciation. When I say speciation is taking place, it is because I view scop, pach, bridgesii peruv etc as variations of a single species, and in some of those cases I view each variation as having emergent uniform populations, such as I feel is the case with T pachanoi. While the genetic mixing you address is undeniably occurring, I think that the gradual divergence of isolated populations is also occurring. The criteria for what warrants species is troublesome in cacti, and that is worth giving its own thread in order to give it the attention it deserves as a complex subject.

Now going back and applying this to cactus I would say that should a Trichocereus be brought into the range of another that is distinct from it and interbreed the offspring wouldn’t at all be new species, but rather just hybrids.

What wopuld the reproductive barriers be for these species? Geographic isolation does not warrant speciation. If two plants share a common range and freely interbreed then their independence as species is highly suspect. Different species can share a range and stay stable because of reproductive isolation which is typically more the standard measure of speciation in plants that any degree of population uniformity.

But should the interloper contribute its genes to the pool of another then over time we could see the development of a new species when the original population. This of course is only the case if both of those that contributed to the mix continued to live outside of this mixed territory and retain their species classification. But the mix would have been of both these other species, therefore when it is no longer like these due to a standardization of its genetics it would in all likelihood have to take on some sore of classification that would either make it a new species, or else a subspecies or variation dependent upon which of the two species was more predominately represented.

That seems to go against what I am familiar with in regard to gene pools, genetic drift and genetic variation. Populations with uniform genes are notoriously poor at survival in a changing environment, genetic variation is a key to allowing adaptation. If the plants can freely exchange genes then according to standard taxonomy they are a single species.

[Gunter]

It should be noted in this discussion that a species isn’t a species unless it has a distinct range in which it grows, and is of somewhat standardized genetics, as represented in its growth habits. .

I don't accept that definition of species, I prefer a more classic definition of reproductive isolation, even though no definition is without some problems. I think humans played the major role in the divergence of these plants into their present forms and that does not warrant taxonomic distinction, just the recognition of distinct regionally affiliated forms.

I am far from supporting any idea that T. pachanoi fall particularly close to scopulicola. T. scopulicola when viewed in the light of my above comments is in my estimates a very genetically consistent plant, something that might indicate little disturbance from man, and therefore that it probably wasn’t used entheogenically.

I think several of its traits suggest it was used enthogenically and shaped by artificial selection. This reminds me, do you recall the corn book (Mary Eubanks) reference you gave me back at the Nook last spring? I emailed the author and asked her if she thought the pre-Columbian Andean people had knowledge of pollination, fertilization and related agricultural technology. She took several months to reply, here is what she had to say:

Your question is a very interesting one and the honest answer is we really do not know. Having said that however, given what pre-Columbian cultures of the Americas accomplished in crop

domestication, I believe they must have had sophisticated knowledge about fertilization, selection and breeding. A good example is cotton which combines multiple genomes and was so important for the textile industry way back in prehistory. That would have required sophisticated knowledge to engineer.

Whether or not my hypothesis about the origin of maize by hybridization between teosinte and gamagrass is correct, prehistoric farmers accomplished tremendous gains in terms of productivity and diversity in maize long before the Spaniards arrived. That again would have required sophisticated knowledge and skill in selection and breeding to achieve.

If only we could go back in time and tap the genius of those prehistoric breeders I feel certain we could learn a lot about speciation and domestication.

I once again wish to support the idea that these were all shaped long ago by artificial selection, even scop which as you mention is very uniform. Consider that the longer a population is isolated the more uniform it can be, though if iot is not reporductivly (not geographically) isolated is does not warrant a species division. However my point here is that I hold that both scop and bridgesii were used in ancient times thousands of years ago, and that the use of Entheogenic Trichocereus may have originated in the area of Bolivia and then spread to areas like northern Peru. A clear religious influence of the Tiwanako culture can be found in the Chavin, known users of San Pedro. I would suggest that the use of San Pedro originated near lake Titicaca and later was expanded to the areas of Peru. Initial settlement dates of the Tiwanako area go back as far as 17,000 years, the archeological evidence for fruit of San Pedro in Northern Peru goes back around 10,000 years, given the suggestion of Mary Eubanks above I would say that the fruit was indeed for propagation purposes, or that the possibility should not be denied. Further archaeoethnobotanical evidence is needed, however I feel the traits, locations dates and archeological evidence suggests that we have no reason to think that members of this complex are not shaped by artificial selection.

It is quite some distance from the main areas of traditional entheogenic use of Trichocereus. I haven’t seen any evidence that there was any traditional use of T. scopulicola at all and there is very little that supports much traditional cultic use of T. bridgesii.

I'd say that the fact they are entheogenic supports the idea they descended from traditionally used plants, that and they fit into the range of the cultures involved and thus could easily have reached their present distribution/location at the hands of ancient peoples. I do not understand how any area in the Incan empire can be considered outside of the main area of traditional entheogenic use of Trichocereus. The Andean people in the area had trade with North and Meso America and I don’t think we should underestimate the significance of this in regard to how we divide the western slopes of the equatorial Andes into various regions. Turtle Island was a small world more than 3000 years ago. For those of you who don't know Turtle Island is the real name of the 'American' continents.

T. bridgesii certainly appears to have some traditional and recreational use today, but there doesn’t appear to be any cultic use surrounding the species such as we see in Peru, particularly in its archeological record.

I would say that is due to a lack of looking, not a lack of evidence. Again I love the quote that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

T. pachanoi Backeberg clone hybrids quite accurately reflect T. pachanoi traits. I haven’t been able to pick up on anything besides the T. pachanoi and what it was crossed with.

I think the Backeberg clone may hold some long spined recessive genes, creating a polyploid of it and allowing it to self pollinate could make or break that theory rather easily.

To me genetic analysis, and archaeoethnobotanical and archaeological data are vital to the study which to me is far more than about just cacti, it is about a bridge between ancient ways and modernity and ultimately speaks eloquently of humanity and the rise and fall of a great civilization.

[Pisgah]

The photograph taken by Plowman is provocative.

I am not a scholar of these matters, but one thing that I seem to recall is that the keen focii of Plowman's studies were in the areas of Erythroxylum (particularly differentiating varieties of novogranatense) and his personal affection with bromeliads. Cacti seemed to have been a tangental area of interest.

Looking at the picture he took, I am struck by the MG huancabamba-esque look of the plant. I am also reminded of Plowman's panache when it came to communing with indigenous cultures, and his ability to secure the trust of those cultures he was working with to find the most revered plant forms and their parochial uses.

Perhaps I am way off base here, but if Plowman catalogs a cactus form, something out of his area of academic concentration, then the cactus probably held some importance with those indigenous people he was working with. The cutting would seem to be am esteemed cultivar.

More speculation: there seems to be some doubt as to the true ID for the "bridgesii" cactus Davis and Plowman consume prior to the conclusion of Davis' book One River. There is also mention by Davis in that chapter that the catus was touted by local in the area as "huachuma."

Were there any other cacti that Plowman recorded as having traditional use? Did Davis ever provide specimens and collection data for the "bridgesii" he and Plowman consumed when they got to bolivia? Could this cactus be the one Davis refers to on One River?

[M S Smith]

Archaea, my “distinct range” of “standardized genetics” is your “reproductive isolation.” We are taking about the same thing with different terminology. The reason why I see de-speciation is because reproductive isolation has been violated with the introduction of different species, and this is also the reason why we are seeing such high variability. I agree that this variability doesn’t make for “taxonomical distinction,” and stated so previously, but I don’t think we could as of yet call these hybrids “regionally affiliated forms” until such time as we can see that such “forms” develop independent populations, something I’m not sure we, away from the sites of growth are able to confirm. These “forms” could still be simple variations due to slight intermingling of introduced plants that have yet to truly gain there own independent ranges or genetic growth habits.

What “traits” do you considerer as indicating that T. scopulicola was “used enthogenically and shaped by artificial selection”? Does the presence of mescaline provide this? If it does then might you also support L. williamsii or simply any cactus that bears enough mescaline to be entheogenic both “used” and “shaped by artificial selection”? Does a plant not have the ability to gain entheogenic levels of mescaline without human intervention?

If it is spination that is an indicative trait of these features does this mean any plant that contains usable amounts of mescaline and has minimal spination must also be due to human intervention? Is there no possibility that T. scopulicola could have developed entheogenic levels of mescaline without human intervention? If yes then what information do you have to support such a thesis?

On what basis besides spination and mescaline do you have to base your thesis that the plant was used “thousands of years ago” or “originated in the area of Bolivia and then spread to areas like northern Peru”? On what information would you presume the origins of the entheogenic use of cacti began in Bolivia?

I am also curious as to why the simple presence of a fruit of T. peruvianus in an archeological find would lead to the unsupported contention that it was used for propagation and not simply for fruit food or the production of maybe even an alcohol based beverage? There is nothing which rules out these other uses and therefore they are just as possible, and therefore the fruit itself doesn’t offer up evidence for its being used for propagation.

In addition, the knowledge of breeding staples of survival doesn’t not automatically indicate that ceremonial plants were as well. I have no trouble with the idea that they could have been, but am more interested in actual evidence that they were before I assent to the idea as I don’t necessarily believe that the production of usable amounts of mescaline was dependent upon breeding itself.

Your comment that “the fact they [T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola] are entheogenic supports the idea they descended from traditionally used plants” seems to indicate that the development of potentially entheogenic plants wouldn’t be possible without traditional use. This also implies that traditional use means intentional breeding. But there are lots of plants that are entheogenic, from mescaline or other chemicals, and do not appear to be so only due to having been used traditionally or had become so through intentional human breeding projects even if they had existed side by side with, and “fit into the range of the cultures,” who used such entheogenic plants.

I would say that is due to a lack of looking, not a lack of evidence. Again I love the quote that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We should not accept the absence of evidence as support for what isn’t seen, but rather look for evidence to support our contention. If we don’t have the support then we should be weary of presenting a thesis that is unsupportable by the evidence. I can not simply accept the ancient traditional use of T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola simply based upon the possible, or even the likely, especially when there is a dearth of support. Northern Peruvian archeological evidence and current tradition of ceremonial use supports the use of T. pachanoi in Peru, this even when it seems these areas were subject to a degree of religious suppression of traditional entheogenic use unequaled in Bolivia, an area which has remained much more traditional in both it religion as well as maintaining more native American heritage. Why no one has uncovered archeological evidence or current ceremonial usage in Bolivia of Trichocereus, should its use have been prevalent in the past, is somewhat of a mystery, one which might point more towards the use of Trichocereus being a rather new phenomena there rather than having spurned the development of such cults in Peru. The fact that Bolivian T. bridgesii is called “huachuma,” a name used in Peru to describe T. pachanoi, might also indicate that Bolivia came to the use of these plants after they had already developed in Peru. I have yet to gain any serious non-speculative information suggestive of traditional use of T. bridgesii or T. scopulicola. Neither have cults been described that use this plants, archeological findings that support its use, or even vernacular names (besides that applied to T. pachanoi in Peru) applied to them that point towards a special relationship with them. I would think that should they have had, or continue to have, ceremonial use in Bolivia we might also run into numerous names applied towards the plant such as we find applied to T. pachanoi in Peru. But we don’t, instead we only have a single word from Davis as the only support. More should be needed before speculation goes further than it already has.

I truly don’t mind the speculation Archaea as it leads to thinking about the question, and what is missing in the thesis proposed. In this case you don’t have adequate support for your argument. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is true, but absence of evidence is not always indicative of the failure to find it. Sometimes the evidence for what one is proposing never existed.

I am certainly interested in finding support for the ancient entheogenic use of T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola, but until this is found I don’t think it of benefit to ponder such ideas as whether it was the source of Peruvian tradition or that these two species where breed by man with the intention to create more powerful entheogenic agents. Without the easy evidence, the use of the plant itself in a longstanding traditional basis as revealed in archeology or current traditional shamanic use, then the other two questions are not even worthy to pursue, as they both are dependent on the first being found as true. If the first isn’t true then they in all likelihood were not intentionally breed, nor could Bolivia be the source of Trichocereus use in Peru.

~Michael~

[Gunter]

Note: My reply is broken up into 3 posts.

my “distinct range” of “standardized genetics” is your “reproductive isolation.” We are taking about the same thing with different terminology. The reason why I see de-speciation is because reproductive isolation has been violated with the introduction of different species, and this is also the reason why we are seeing such high variability.

A uniform gene pool does not constitute reproductive isolation by my understanding. Species that are reproductively isolated can co-exist side by side without a mixing of genes. Different flowering times, different specific pollinators and different chemical keys for pollen recognition all count as types of reproductive isolation. geographic isolation cannot in my opinion constitute reproductive isolation is when representatives the involved populations readily for fertile intermediates in areas where they share territory. In some cases intermediates between separate species can be found, but they are exceptions and are rare even in areas where the species can be found side by side.

What “traits” do you considerer as indicating that T. scopulicola was “used enthogenically and shaped by artificial selection”? Does the presence of mescaline provide this? If it does then might you also support L. williamsii or simply any cactus that bears enough mescaline to be entheogenic both “used” and “shaped by artificial selection”?

Several traits suggest this including its mescaline content. Show me that Lophophora has been cultivated and bred by an ancient civilization that had knowledge of fertilization other botanical technologies that facilitated amazing levels of crop and animal development. The ability of scop to interbreed freely with the other members of the complex, its mescaline content and spination and location all suggest that it is a descendant of a traditional cultivar as are the rest of the members of the complex.

The genetic uniformity or heterozygous condition indicated by the uniformity of scopulicola supports its existence in its present location for a considerable amount of time. This is not unusual for an ancient cultivar and even plants that are infrequently used traditionally today may have been traditionally used. Lophophora was used for thousands of years, however I do not think that it was shaped, cultivated or distributed the way Trichocereus was. The presence of mescaline can only be a single factor, however I would like more evidence of plants containing mescaline as a predominant alkaloid with few others that have been shaped by natural selection alone, peyote simply doesn't fit the criteria and its complex chemistry and extreme variability do not seem to be the result of artificial selection. Given these aspects I find that the preponderance of the burden of suggesting scopulicolis was not used traditionally would require contrary evidence, I would suggest that this evidence be provided via genetics and archeology/archaeoethnobotany. Its in the range of the people who used the plants, it has a phenomorph and chemotype suggestive of artificial selection and it freely interbreeds with other members of the complex known to be descendants of ancient cultivars.

Does a plant not have the ability to gain entheogenic levels of mescaline without human intervention?

I don’t think that is the real question. I think the question is did the entheogenic complex in Trichocereus evolve mescaline as a main alkaloid via natural selection and I think the answer is probably not. That is not to say a plant cannot evolve entheogenic levels of mescaline, but I would appreciate someone pointing out any other species chemically comparable that has no association with humanity. I do not think the location, uniformity nor the individuality in scopulicolus constitute reproductive isolation and as such I do not view it as an independent species. I would however suggest that if isolation continues then genetic drift will promote speciation through population divergence over time that culminates in biologically based reproductive isolation. The antithesis of this divergence is what I would characterize your de-speciation as. Although I appreciate the reticulated nature of phylogenetic relationships, particularly in the Cactaceae, I do not recognize freely produced fertile intermediates as hybrids between separate species, nor would I typify a uniform population produced from isolated intermediates as a new species or the product of two separate species. I would like examples in numerous plant families to be considered in any evaluation of the mechanisms of divergence and convergence in a single gene pool composed of multiple geographically isolated populations that can freely interbreed. If the divergence does merit taxonomic distinction I would imagine it would take the form of subspecies designations.

If it is spination that is an indicative trait of these features does this mean any plant that contains usable amounts of mescaline and has minimal spination must also be due to human intervention? Is there no possibility that T. scopulicola could have developed entheogenic levels of mescaline without human intervention? If yes then what information do you have to support such a thesis?

Primarily a lack of contrary examples and the existence of the precedent of artificial selection having shaped cacti that I consider to be the same species, although I think of them as different variations or subspecies of whatever epithet we are dealing with. I would suggest that the proper epithet for this group/complex is in fact Echinopsis lageniformis.

I think we should consider that in the interest of survival chemotype variation allows greater ability to adapt to natural pressures. The chemistry of San Pedro and allies seems to suggest that feral or naturally selected populations do not have mescaline as predominant alkaloid though they can contain an amount that can be considered entheogenic. I believe a feral spination also exists, spines play several important roles in cacti and this relates to my notions, the roles of spination in this regard is something I can elaborate upon more at some later point if needs be.

On what basis besides spination and mescaline do you have to base your thesis that the plant was used “thousands of years ago” or “originated in the area of Bolivia and then spread to areas like northern Peru”? On what information would you presume the origins of the entheogenic use of cacti began in Bolivia?

As is the case with all puzzles there are many subtle and complex aspects to the pieces. As I have mentioned, the population uniformity in T scopulicolus due to regional isolation over a long time period indicates that the populations involved have likely been in place for more than a thousand years. Then there is the definitive fact the populations occur in the Incan Empire which includes ever country that any entheogenic Trichocereus have been found in thus far to the best of my knowledge. A great deal of my belief is also based upon archaeological evidence of the development, movement and exchange of the Andean peoples. Simply put the cacti in Bolivia seem to have been in place longer, there is a religious and cultural link between Bolivia and Peru, and Bolivian settlements are among the oldest in the region. I am using the principal of parsimony here, it is by no means infallible, however it is of great utility. It simply makes more sense and in my opinion the pieces of the puzzle fit better so to speak that the alternatives I have given consideration.

I am also curious as to why the simple presence of a fruit of T. peruvianus in an archeological find would lead to the unsupported contention that it was used for propagation and not simply for fruit food or the production of maybe even an alcohol based beverage? There is nothing which rules out these other uses and therefore they are just as possible, and therefore the fruit itself doesn’t offer up evidence for its being used for propagation.

The cache we are speaking of contained three main plant species, two were in the form of seeds of cultivated crops not found in the area that were only propagated by seed, these were lima beans and chile peppers. In the interest of parsimony it makes more sense that the cache was a reservoir not of material for eating, but material for propagation. Using the cache as a source of seeds allows food production, using it as a source of food is both un-pragmatic and inconsistent with the cache contents, the location given, and the practice of the peoples. Chiles and Beans are used in the Andes to this day, how common is the use of San Pedro fruit as a food? Is it so hard to believe that a 10,000 year old seed cache could exist that held in essence a spice, a staple and an entheogen? It sounds like the people who placed it there were pretty intelligent to me and I think the Mary Eubanks suggestion (she is well studied in Andean botany) puts the idea that they were for food alone rather improbable, though no doubt in a pinch it could be eaten.

[Gunter]

 

 

In addition, the knowledge of breeding staples of survival doesn’t not automatically indicate that ceremonial plants were as well. I have no trouble with the idea that they could have been, but am more interested in actual evidence that they were before I assent to the idea as I don’t necessarily believe that the production of usable amounts of mescaline was dependent upon breeding itself.

I think you are asking for something akin to a photograph of God. However it depends on what you are willing to accept as evidence. I believe you have a great deal of that evidence in your garage or basement right now. I think that foryou to suggest that they could fertilize and breed one type of plant and not another almost suggest they didn't know what they are doing. I think that the crops involved show otherwise, including entheogenic Trichocereus which enjoy diversity alongside consistent traits far more akin to those produced via artificial selection than any alternative.

Your comment that “the fact they [T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola] are entheogenic supports the idea they descended from traditionally used plants” seems to indicate that the development of potentially entheogenic plants wouldn’t be possible without traditional use.

Not if you consider it context specific and consider that precedent exists for this specific context. To suggest that the idea of an artificially selected entheogenic trait in these subspecies indicates that all potentially entheogenic plants have seen traditional use strikes me as absurd. I know that is not what you are suggesting, neither am I.

This also implies that traditional use means intentional breeding. But there are lots of plants that are entheogenic, from mescaline or other chemicals, and do not appear to be so only due to having been used traditionally or had become so through intentional human breeding projects even if they had existed side by side with, and “fit into the range of the cultures,” who used such entheogenic plants.

I am talking about a specific context, not every plant that has potential psychoactive effect. Also the context of the agricultural knowledge and cultivation practices of the people in the range plays a major role. I do not understand how you derive the idea that in any context psychoactivity is an indication of artificial selection. I wonder though, are you claiming it is not possible for artificial selection to shape psychoactivity? I think tobacco provides excellent insights into this area. I can elaborate why if needs be, suffice it to say each case must be looked at individually, one may simply not make broad assertions. I do not feel that the assertions I am making are broad at all or carry the connotations you are implying.

We should not accept the absence of evidence as support for what isn’t seen, but rather look for evidence to support our contention. If we don’t have the support then we should be weary of presenting a thesis that is unsupportable by the evidence.

I agree and think that the idea that scop and bridgesii were not used lacks evidence, and that the opposite is indicated by the evidence available. Given this I believe the burden of proof lies in disproving they were used traditionally, not the other way around.

I can not simply accept the ancient traditional use of T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola simply based upon the possible, or even the likely, especially when there is a dearth of support. Northern Peruvian archeological evidence and current tradition of ceremonial use supports the use of T. pachanoi in Peru, this even when it seems these areas were subject to a degree of religious suppression of traditional entheogenic use unequaled in Bolivia, an area which has remained much more traditional in both it religion as well as maintaining more native American heritage. Why no one has uncovered archeological evidence or current ceremonial usage in Bolivia of Trichocereus, should its use have been prevalent in the past, is somewhat of a mystery, one which might point more towards the use of Trichocereus being a rather new phenomena there rather than having spurned the development of such cults in Peru.

There is a lot of work to be done in Andean archaeology, the vast majority of archaeological sites remain unexplored, until that changes I do not consider a lack of archaeological evidence definitive.

The fact that Bolivian T. bridgesii is called “huachuma,” a name used in Peru to describe T. pachanoi, might also indicate that Bolivia came to the use of these plants after they had already developed in Peru.

It likely did, evidence suggests cultural movement from Bolivia to the Peruvian area and back again over time. I think we need to consider the extent of the time frame here, there is not a clear line to the past, there are several breaks where knowledge was likely lost and rediscovered and instances where those who help certain knowledge died out and the knowledge along with them. The transition for pre-Columbian times to modern times involved the fall of an empire that lasted more than a thousand years and conquered vast territory. Considering this and the plagues that occurred both before and immediately after contact I do not think that all ancient practices and knowledge made it to modernity. Also considering language, it is possible for a conquering people to impose a language on a people with effect that might be described as linguistic oral Libricide. Many languages are lost, and many spoken are not original but are instead acquired.

I have yet to gain any serious non-speculative information suggestive of traditional use of T. bridgesii or T. scopulicola. Neither have cults been described that use this plants, archeological findings that support its use, or even vernacular names (besides that applied to T. pachanoi in Peru) applied to them that point towards a special relationship with them. I would think that should they have had, or continue to have, ceremonial use in Bolivia we might also run into numerous names applied towards the plant such as we find applied to T. pachanoi in Peru. But we don’t, instead we only have a single word from Davis as the only support. More should be needed before speculation goes further than it already has.

I think given the situation and nature of language and the history of the area that is an unreasonable expectation.

. Sometimes the evidence for what one is proposing never existed.

I would suggest that is the case for evidence supporting the idea the cacti were not used.