Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
trucha

How to recognize a bridgesii

Question

I think this is as far as I am goign to take it but hope these four posts can helps us keep our plants on parallel paths rather than puddling into one unworkable morass where they probably belong.

If I HAVE to I'll add more but hopefully this is enough to get this insanity tour started properly.

I was wondering what features can reliably recognize a bridgesii.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I think some comments might be in order here:

Michael commented:

"I would just hate to see us so devoted to the rules of taxonomy that we determined that the first "species" of "Echinopsis" that was described, and to which T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. bridgesii, etc., fell into according to flower characteristics became the only species with all others becoming subspecies.

[...]

But you know as well as I do that species are not supposed to be able to cross with anything but their own species therefore since you can cross T. bridgesii with[....] probably every single Echinopsis there is, these are all in fact the same species."

[[There is some gross misunderstanding or misinterpretation there.

No botanist I have ever spoken with holds any of the opinions that you just stated unless the flowers are not significantly different in reliable ways (keep in mind that like the bodies all cactus flowers are going to show a bit of a range rather than being exactly the same even on a single plant).

The idea that species are able to only cross with their own species is a zoological maxim that does not apply to botany. I had a really nice discussion on this topic with Myron Kimnach and Jim Bauml just this year. (both are PhD botanists with massive experience with cacti taxonomy.) Myron (the same man who planted that HUGE terscheckii at Berkeley around 50 years ago) expressed surprise (disbelief actually) that anyone would try to use that as a definition of species but then he is a botanist not a zoologist. There are a surprising amount of intergeneric crosses known not just interspecific.]]

"So in the end, since Trichocereus should have never been broken from Echinopsis, and all can freely mix, the first described Echinopsis should be the "species" and all other should be subspecies. I think Echinopsis eyriesii is the first described Echinopsis so we should then probably have every thing as E. eyriesii ssp. pachanoi, etc. If we were to that though I would probably have something like E. eyriesii ssp. (insert second nomial first described columnar "Trichocereus" here) var. pachanoi, etc. That is assuming all Echinopsis/Trichocereus can freely mix, which I am not certain that is the case and only make such a suggestion to point out issues with nomenclature rather than to be factual about the Echinopsis/Trichocereus genus."

[[That is silly. There are huge floristic differences between many of those plants that merit specific stature in the eyes of anyone trained in botany (even within the lumper community).

Are you really saying that a bruchii flower looks like a pachanoi flower and that they could be confused with Lobivia flowers and Echinopsis eyriesii or leucanthus flowers?

I would not say that a terscheckii flower looks like a pachanoi flower as I would have no problem differentiating a severed pachanoi flower apart from a severed terscheckii flower and could correctly ID which was which with no more than a glance. And I am not a botanist.

Even the lumpers in the ICSG group them according to flower subtypes that are quite capable of creating some nice and clear dividing lines within Echinopsis sensu latu. (Including being capable of seperating Trichocereus from Echinopsis sensu stricto) You might want to read Bob Schick's Echinopsis Revisited I think. (A new illustrated version should be up online before long but even the old preliminary version should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in the subject.) Heimo Friedrich actually commented on the great need for creating subdivisions within Echinopsis when he merged Trichocereus into it.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

kt, I am suprised that you fail to see that the comments I made on the specific aspect of "species" you bring up is not necessarily a "position" I hold on species, but is an illustration of some of the concerns that exist in the understanding of the subject.

You quote me above in this statement; that I "only make such a suggestion to point out issues with nomenclature rather than to be factual about the Echinopsis/Trichocereus genus." This remains true.

I'll finish up some other comments appropriate from the T. pachanoi thread this weekend. I've seen them for a few days, but haven't found the time I would like to make a good response.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I do see and understand what you are saying Michael. I'm just concerned that your view is based on selecting things which support it and running with that while ignoring anything contradicting it.

I am also concerned that you present definitions not held by botanists (for instance your definition of species).

Bottom line is pachanoi is variable.

Separately redefining pachanoi, peruvianus and macrogonus along idiosyncratic lines does not seem all that helpful but I certainly do enjoy the discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If I was to hold the definitions of "species" of which you seem to continue to insist I do (though I have tried to point out I don't; as if I did I wouldn’t discuss different species at all) then I would be arguing that Lophophora and Turbinicarpus are not even distinct taxa because they appear to interbreed, but this is not my claim. The fact is your own comments appear to be more “clumping” than my own since you rely more on flower characteristics in your position than I do. My use of “species” is to differentiate so that we can have a common understanding of what “sort” of plant we are talking about, as no doubt you yourself understand that “names” are for us, and not intrinsic to the plants themselves, especially regarding a genus whose human value has no doubt contributed to its diversity and our difficulty in making determinations about it.

Certainly T. pachanoi is variable, and I have never argued that it is not; in fact I have seen that it is extremely variable. I have only argued that: 1) I have yet to either find or be provided with information that adequately indicates that the so-called "Backeberg clone/Predominant clone" (BC/PC) is represented in Peru and Ecuador, and 2) that I, from some of its features, "suspect" it may be closer in "relation" to T. bridgesii than the T. pachanoi of Peru and Ecuador.

Since you define these plants by their flower characteristics, and you appear to believe that there exists no significant difference between T. bridgesii and T. pachanoi flowers, it shouldn't matter which of the names I refer to the BC/PC plant as because T. pachanoi and T. bridgesii are in essence the same plant anyhow. So should that be the case then my proposing the BC/PC plant is closer in “relation” to the Trichocereus of La Paz, Bolivia, as opposed to those of Ecuador and northern Peru, should not pose so many difficulties. Since the flowers of these two are allegedly so indistinct as to not differential into species then my suspicions of the BC/PC plant as closer in “relation” to T. bridgesii is purely based on morphological characteristics, and that may not need the same degree of botanical understanding as the degree necessary when considering flowers. And I am sure that since we agree on there being a high degree of variability in T. pachanoi there may be similar amounts in T. bridgesii, and so maybe the exploration my statements demand into the subject could be explored further, something which is what I offer to others through my speculations; speculations which come from someone who has never affected to be anything he is not, particularly a botanist.

But anyhow, some of this may be more appropriate for the thread on T. pachanoi, and I anticipate some time to get to that this weekend. In the end I am certain we disagree far less than you might suppose.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

ps- I've never sought to "redefine" anything, only attempt to clarify. My points have only been that within the entheogen community in particularly (and that is the extent of my influence) there has been a longstanding misunderstanding of what represented T. pachanoi, that being the BC/PC plant, and as to what represented T. peruvianus, that being what I've referred to as "T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)" and in older crowds was known as the "KK242". I've held that though T. pachanoi is variable it is represented best by those plants which grow commonly and prominently throughout Ecuador and Peru. Though the "species" varies quite a bit I have yet to view one which varies so far as that I observe in the BC/PC plant. In fact, from morphological characteristics alone (since such characteristics are lacking in flowers) I see a greater similarity of the T. pachanoi of Ecuador (see the Plowman plant) and those in the markets of northern Peru (i.e. Chiclayo) to the T. peruvianus of central Peru (i.e. Icaros) than either of these to the BC/PC plant.

As for T. macrogonus, I have not redefined it; rather I have discounted it completely. From my perspective there is a genetic bridge that extends from the commonly observed Ecuador/Peru T. pachanoi through the T. peruvianus of Dept. Lima and Matucana. Though having discounted T. macrogonus I believe what is commonly referred to as T. macrogonus are multiple variations of this genetic bridge that neither quite fit into either of the more accepted species according to more hardened views regarding morphological characteristics (as we know there will be little flower division). I also think that many times plants that can be properly referred to as T. peruvianus are called T. macrogonus simply based upon how they might be growing under their particular environmental conditions.

Ugh, that was more writing than I thought I would need….looks like the weekend has started. Now to see what I have saved for the other threads.

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

For things you say you don't believe or mean you sure use a lot of word in your posts to the contrary?

I am even more puzzled by the assertion that you do not see S.Am. pachanoi that vary as much as the PC thing? You might want to examine the photos you have posted at this forum (or have very kindly shared with me privately) as they do not support that assertion.

I'm not trying to get in an argument with you, I am just puzzled.

EIther I misworded it or you misunderstood what I think you were saying about species. I understood you to say a species is something that can cross with only its own species. Plenty of these cacti have never made successful crosses. I was only going by your words immediately preceeding mine.

And I certainly do not discount the possibility the PC thing is some sort of pachanoi hybrid (based on its flowers and intense vigor compared to the smoother profiled S.Am pachanoi).

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see a similarity in the Ecuador/peru T. pachanoi that, though varied within itself, doesn't from my perspective carry over well to the BC/PC plant (regarding morphology of course as has been said the flowers should be quite similar if not botanically identical).

And again, I never contended that I agreed with a species only being able to cross with its own species, in fact I said I "only make such a suggestion to point out issues with nomenclature rather than to be factual about the Echinopsis/Trichocereus genus." But I repeat myself.

I too am curious about the possibility of the BC/PC plant being a clone, maybe somewhat of an intermediary between Ecuador/Peru T. pachanoi and T. bridgesii. The following photo is of particularly interesting to me in this regard, it is a plants from the "Jardin Botanico Martin Cardenas" in Cochabamba, Bolivia (interestingly enough Mizque, the alledged origin of T. riomizque, is in Cochabamba). Notice the somewhat rougher lines compared to the smother lined plants of Ecuador and Peru. Martin Cardenas was a student of the biology of Bolivia, and I am curious if he and Backeberg may have had some contact. I wanted to wait to share this this I was able to do a little more footwork on it, but maybe this is an area you may well be better to explore than myself kt.

~Michael~

post-19-1200090387_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200090387_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200090387_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I apologize if I misunderstood your comment farther above (and earlier in other threads a while back or perhaps that earlier time was Archaea's post):

But you know as well as I do that species are not supposed to be able to cross with anything but their own species therefore since you can cross T. bridgesii with a low growing clumper with red flower, and probably every single Echinopsis there is, these are all in fact the same species.

Origin of Cardeña's plants seems to be the first question as most botanists have plants from all over in their gardens and collection data is often present for most botanical garden's collections. (I wish I could say all) Is he still alive?

Rio Mizquiensis does look a lot like the pachanoi PC but none I have seen share its growth rate. Even the one I now doubt as correct (and I could be wrong) is slow growing compared to the PC thing.

Cardeñas and Backeberg were probably friends but certainly knew each other. Backeberg wrote at least one description for him.

Does anyone have any idea of either why Unicode entities don't display right or else how we can use diacritics that display?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well, I can't say that I necessarily agreed with that particular definition of species, but I may have been guilty of using it within a particular context to argue a point...this whether the point was particularly valid or not. I'm not a scientist as much as one who loves to write and engage.

I'm not sure if Cardenas is still alive, but I doubt it as when I read about the garden they spoke of him in the past tense. So, do you think that plant can open some avenues for you? I find it a facinating plant. Here's another one from the Jardin Botanico Martin Cardenas in Cochabamba. I am not certain the plants on the left (not the apparent Armatocereus though) are the same as that above or if they are possibly your standard T. bridgesii. I wish they photo was a little closer, but alas.

~Michael~

post-19-1200093691_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200093691_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200093691_thumb.jpg

Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think Cardenas is most probably dead.

The garden may well have records (or at least a label).

To me though the plant in the garden more closely resembles the riomizquiensis than the pc plant.

What suggests this to me is the areole spacing and that interesting parallel ribbing perpendicular to the ribs that you do see sometimes in both the pachanoi pc and also in Peruvian spineless pachanoi but usually only towards the tip and not always well defined or visible like in Ritter's image of riomizquiensis. I think Sato may have an image also but I have not looked at that book is years.

I'd love to see it in person as well as real riomizquiensis.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Some T. bridgesii in habitat and in market, even with ketsup and mustard!

~Michael~

post-19-1200188274_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188328_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188381_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188443_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188681_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188771_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188840_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188928_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188274_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188328_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188381_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188443_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188681_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188771_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188840_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188928_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188274_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188328_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188381_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188443_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188681_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188771_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188840_thumb.jpg

post-19-1200188928_thumb.jpg

Edited by M S Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

A few non-monstrose bridgesii from my collection:

med_gallery_2376_3_18892.jpg

med_gallery_2376_3_19040.jpg

med_gallery_2376_3_43.jpg

med_gallery_2376_3_19559.jpg

med_gallery_2376_3_6935.jpg

edit: BTW, in the above image^^^ the trich at the very front & the pach's in the back, as well as the hoodia's (it goes without saying) are not bridgesii :wink:

& from a local garden:

med_gallery_2376_3_15420.jpg

med_gallery_2376_3_11611.jpg

med_gallery_2376_3_41434.jpg

all fairly generic varieties, but thought it was worth posting :)

Edited by Paradox
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Sorry to litter... Para, in the 5th image of your last post, there is a seedling in an orange pot ... nearest the camera... do you know what they are exactly? I have a 3 dollar Bunnings refugee I've always had suspicions about and they look like sisters.

Nice collection btw!

VM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

a quick thought on the specie definition of only being able to breed. this is something i have never agreed with. i am no botanist but i have worked with reptiles for many years and can only say there have been a LOT of different hybrids done OUTside of a single species. Pythons, kingsnakes, milksnakes actually a lot of different colubrids. most are in the same genera.

this makes me think that either the definition is wrong or the classification is wrong...but i often personally think both are often flawed. and cacti like you guys mention can certainly cross breed further up the tree than the specie level. its not just plants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Sorry to litter... Para, in the 5th image of your last post, there is a seedling in an orange pot ... nearest the camera... do you know what they are exactly? I have a 3 dollar Bunnings refugee I've always had suspicions about and they look like sisters.

Nice collection btw!

VM

hey vert, those two littluns are refugees too, saved the poor little bastartds just in time & now they're going strong! so i guess they probably are sisters :)

it's hard to tell at this tender age but i'm pretty certain they're bridgesii :) i saved some others about 2-3 years ago which looked exactly the same & they grew into those three multi branched plants you can see in photos 1, 4 & 5, definately bridgesii :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
a quick thought on the specie definition of only being able to breed. this is something i have never agreed with. i am no botanist but i have worked with reptiles for many years and can only say there have been a LOT of different hybrids done OUTside of a single species. Pythons, kingsnakes, milksnakes actually a lot of different colubrids. most are in the same genera.

this makes me think that either the definition is wrong or the classification is wrong...but i often personally think both are often flawed. and cacti like you guys mention can certainly cross breed further up the tree than the specie level. its not just plants.

The idea is that hybrids are intermediates to forms representing a specific range of phenotypes and populations, as that we are able to distinguish hybrids as intermediate of those forms then we are able to daw lines between species and genera based upon such a status. The conservation of a specific form via sexual propagation is a mark of specificity as it were, I do contend that sall san pedro cacti are a single species, but that is based upon the idea of conservation of specific traits in crosses, while an intermediate is just that. Also reproductive isolation is not always biological.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Some interesting things have been found by friends who are in Bolivia studying this subject.

Apparently during the 1970s the military had orders to remove bridgesii from around the cities due to an invasion of "hippies". Or at least the perception of one occurring.

Dickson wrote an article for Head around this time where she had encountered it being sold in the markets. She was unaware it was not pachanoi though.

When the ceremonialist Miguel Kavlin (who was born in Bolivia) tried to find out about indigenous use of bridgesii only a few years later he could find nothing at all. Apparently the efforts of the military had either eliminated it or else had driven it underground leaving people unwilling to discuss it.

In recent years bridgesii has started to repappear in the witches markets, fresh, dried, live cuttings etc... Discussions of traditional use and the use of other cacti is also starting to occur.

Interestingly this is apparently not occurring in ALL of the Bolivian witches markets but just those that are frequented by tourists. A friend found that in the off-the-tourist-trails traditional witches markets there were no bridgesii to be found in any form anywhere.

A similar picture seems to now exists in Ecuador where a thriving if not booming psychedelic tourism industry catering to tourists exists alongside claims of no traditional use at all (by Bussman and Sharon - full text is available online).

I am looking forward to a lot more reports from the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That's pretty deppressing...

I hope I never see the words "military" and "bridgesii" used in the same sentence ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Some interesting things have been found by friends who are in Bolivia studying this subject.

Apparently during the 1970s the military had orders to remove bridgesii from around the cities due to an invasion of "hippies". Or at least the perception of one occurring.

Dickson wrote an article for Head around this time where she had encountered it being sold in the markets. She was unaware it was not pachanoi though.

When the ceremonialist Miguel Kavlin (who was born in Bolivia) tried to find out about indigenous use of bridgesii only a few years later he could find nothing at all. Apparently the efforts of the military had either eliminated it or else had driven it underground leaving people unwilling to discuss it.

In recent years bridgesii has started to repappear in the witches markets, fresh, dried, live cuttings etc... Discussions of traditional use and the use of other cacti is also starting to occur.

Interestingly this is apparently not occurring in ALL of the Bolivian witches markets but just those that are frequented by tourists. A friend found that in the off-the-tourist-trails traditional witches markets there were no bridgesii to be found in any form anywhere.

A similar picture seems to now exists in Ecuador where a thriving if not booming psychedelic tourism industry catering to tourists exists alongside claims of no traditional use at all (by Bussman and Sharon - full text is available online).

I am looking forward to a lot more reports from the field.

Very interestin info! Keep it coming :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

hhh were selling a very fat/solid plant looking most like bridgeii but the green was a different shade than i had ever seen on a bridgesii.very green , a touch dark, but maybe a bit dull compared with pachanoi.2 almost paralled short downward pointing very thin spines.this appeared to be material from a very mature plant.

anyone know what it was ?

t s t .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This one tantra? I got it off HHH at EGA.

post-2263-1221121471_thumb.jpg

post-2263-1221121681_thumb.jpg

post-2263-1221121893_thumb.jpg

post-2263-1221122093_thumb.jpg

Yeah I think some sort of bridgesoid hybrid. Damn fast grower, I removed another pup that was alittle bigger than those 2. I like the wavy rib margins. Deffinitely something different in my collection. I like it.

post-2263-1221121471_thumb.jpg

post-2263-1221121681_thumb.jpg

post-2263-1221121893_thumb.jpg

post-2263-1221122093_thumb.jpg

post-2263-1221121471_thumb.jpg

post-2263-1221121681_thumb.jpg

post-2263-1221121893_thumb.jpg

post-2263-1221122093_thumb.jpg

Edited by shruman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Colour does not really give any indication of species. This may be a little bit of a generalization but approximately 90%, if not a little more of colour has to do with environment. Environment can mean pretty much anything that is not genetically controlled. I have had bridgesii, peruvianus and pachanoi that have been yellow green and blue at some stages in their lives.

ID'ing these cacti definitively, especially concerning hybrids etc is almost impossible without flowers, and even then you need to be an experienced cacti botanist to know what you are talking about. In general spine sizes can give indications on species but saying something is bridge/peruv cross ect is fluff talk unless you were involved in the hybridization process

Plants are just like humans, we are all Homo sapien sapien, same sub species but we all look different. We must remember that species still have a great amount of variation within them

Even identical twins can look different. Exact same genetics, in terms clones, but their environment has shaped them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

shruman,very similar to that one but no spines longer than about a cm.

pupped on every rib when planted then aborted one pup.

pups have a few more spines but still thin and short.

all spines white.

assume it came from somewhere wet as it was going moldy and rotting,was told ray refused its return!

makes me think of psycho0 X short spine peruvianus.

was not good to see it 4 sale among a bunch of pachs when it prob has 3X potency,bit of a surprise for someone!

t s t .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

what ever it is i have yet to see any with 5 ribs and i've seen at least ten so far.........so i'm assuming its not a bridgesii?

t s t .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Beuty101.jpg

Gessi.jpg

I dunno but I would say the ZA clone looks the best. No need for a pretty name even.

I thought this thread where about genetic complications or something.

:bootyshake:

Where's all the money shot's. Has bridgesii become a struggling species all of a sudden?

Edited by George

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

×