Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
M S Smith

On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus

Question

Here's something I threw together over the last day or two. It is more or less a repeat of some of the stuff I've said before, but I tried to put it in a little more order. I hope everyone likes it and finds it useful.

~Michael~

********

On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus

By Michael S. Smith

March 16, 2008

For years the plant in the following photo has gone by the name Trichocereus pachanoi and is widely known as the "Backeberg clone," apparently without clear support that this particular clone was introduced into US cultivation by Backeberg himself. This plant is particularly consistent in its growth habit and appears to be a true “clone” as it is unable to crossbreed with other matching its characteristics, thereby revealing that it is of a singular genetic make-up and a plant widely propagated through clippings. It has been the common form of T. pachanoi for decades, most likely due to its particularly hardy nature in the American southwest, the region from which it appears have had its origins into general cultivation. In the last few years there has been an increase in the importation of T. pachanoi from Ecuador and Peru, none of which match this clone. I have seen little support that the so-called "Backeberg clone" grows in Ecuador or Peru as a native and historically present plant, but it is likely present there now to a small degree in collections.

I have recently suggested that the so-called “Backeberg clone” is in fact a closer relative of T. bridgesii than to the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru. This needs to be explored further, but will likely need to await genetic tests.

TpachHN017.jpg

Next is a somewhat typical T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru. This form of T. pachanoi is ubiquitous from Ecuador through Peru and to a smaller degree in Chile and northern Bolivia. It appears to have a much more prominent place in Ecuador and northern Peru than in the dryer conditions farther south. Spine length on this form can be quite variable, but the general rib formation remains fairly consistent.

TperuKK242_Tpach005.jpg

Below is the so-called "short spined T. peruvianus." This name appear to be completely of my own doing when many years ago it was sent to me simply as a “T. peruvianus” and I added the "short spined" moniker to differentiate it from the then common long spined form of T. peruvianus that I have more recently suspected is T. cuzcoensis. This particular "short spined T. peruvianus" is clearly a form of T. pachanoi.

The “short spined T. peruvianus” may have had its source from the Berkeley Botanical Garden as it appears to be identical to their “Trichocereus sp. Peru #64.0762” which was collected by P. Hutchinson and J.K. Wright at the Canyon Rio Maranon above Chagual, Huamachuco Province, Peru.

TperuShortSpinedCactusCorral040.jpg

As said before, the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru can be quite variable dependent upon genetics and breeding in different ranges, but this is almost solely in regards to spine length. Some T. pachanoi are mistakenly regarded as “short spined T. peruvianus” due to some considering the so-called “Backeberg clone” the standard T. pachanoi. I should note again that the “short spined T. peruvianus” is better understood as a T. pachanoi and not a T. peruvianus.

Below is the plant I consider an accurate representation of T. peruvianus. This plant is common in Department Lima, Peru, and in particular near the town of Matucana, the location assigned to the species by Britton & Rose. Like with T. pachanoi there is a range of variability in growth habit, particularly in spination, but also in regards to it being erect or decumbent. It is also much more glacous (“frosted”) than T. pachanoi, in all likelihood due to its location in the dryer south (glaucescence appearing to serve as a sort of reflective sunscreen for the plant).

TperuvianusBS007.jpg

This T. peruvianus is quite distinct from the plant below which I refer to as “T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)” and which was a common T. peruvianus in cultivation since the early 1990s and was said to come from Matucana, Peru, and often went by the collection number KK242 of Karol Knize.

Tperuvianus-cuzcoensisQ1.jpg

This “T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)” plant does not appear to be represented in the Matucana region, but it does quite accurately match plants from Department Cuzco, Peru, the location of T. cuzcoensis. Hopefully at this point it should be needless to say that the T. cuzcoensis of the Cuzco region, like T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus, also shows degrees of variability.

Lastly, here are a few pictures of plants commonly referred to as T. macrogonus. The first two are of the same plant.

TmacrogonusOsprey003.jpg

TmacrogonusOsprey005.jpg

TmacrogonusKohres005.jpg

TmacrogonusSAB.jpg

TspRS0004_003.jpg

It is interesting to note the similarities between the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru, the T. peruvianus of Lima, and T. macrogonus. If you look closely they are somewhat upon a sliding scale, with the T. macrogonus appearing to be an intermediary between the T. pachanoi and the T. peruvianus. These three no doubt bear flowers that upon dissection would show them to be the same identical species, therefore the name of these three should be the species that was first named and described. T. macrogonus has the oldest name, but due to the confusion regarding it, and the fact that it was described from a plant in a European collection that lacked collection data, the species name should be either T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus. But this is confounded by the fact that these two were both described as “Species Nova” (“New Species”) by Britton & Rose without comment regarding which was described first. So in the end the overarching species should be called one of these two names alone. Regardless of this botanical understanding maintaining the use of two names is valuable when trying to speaking about plants that fit a certain type, and therefore whether you call a plant T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus, seeing that the main difference is in spination, is dependent upon the length of the spines. Plants that fall somewhere in-between seem to be quickly regarded as T. macrogonus, but there is nothing that points towards T. macrogonus being any different than T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus with the exception that it has spination somewhat intermediate between these two main species.

Well I hope that helps a little bit and isn’t too confusing. I’m sure those who are students of these plants will take something from it, but please note there is nothing definitive about my opinions and they will require further research from those in a better position than I.

Edited by M S Smith
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Psili Sausage (welcome and killer name :lol:), Trichs dont always have v-notches. Some dont display it at all, some have deep notches. All comes down to genetics (even individual cacti from the same seed-batch can display very different appearances like this). Pics would be the easiest way to confirm the ID :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here's a pic of my Peruvianus X Panchanoi. Has anyone seen this variation around lately. I got it from an auction sight. It's unlike any of my other peruvianus variations.

post-3940-1217484622_thumb.jpg

post-3940-1217484633_thumb.jpg

post-3940-1217484749_thumb.jpg

post-3940-1217484622_thumb.jpg

post-3940-1217484633_thumb.jpg

post-3940-1217484749_thumb.jpg

post-3940-1217484622_thumb.jpg

post-3940-1217484633_thumb.jpg

post-3940-1217484749_thumb.jpg

Edited by sturmer88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Could we bump this thread. I wanted to see if anyone has received the short spined kk242 clone, and or has any information about it I made another thread about it and this thread touches bases on this subject.. we know knife actually went to the site and collected various cuts from this site. A cuzco, a true Peruviana and a interesting pachanoi that according to trout they were collected by Rio chillon f. Langa and 4 other spots. All in the region of matucana peru. I'm sure lots of folks got there hands on these clones, vendors, collectors and nurseries. I wanted to see pictures trout only has a couple of shots of these and I think another website sells it also by the name very fastest or pachanoi X peruvianus hybrid. This clone is very interesting and grows amongst other trichocereus. Open pollinated seeds from local plants could bear it's genetics which maybe the explanation from pachanoid being labeled peruvianus. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

bump. i still can't tell the difference between t. macrogonas and t. peruvianus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

bump. i still can't tell the difference between t. macrogonas and t. peruvianus.

I don't think there is a significantly meaningful difference at all between T. peruvianus, a species of some variability, and most horticultural offerings of T. macrogonus.

~Michael~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

only the macros being lots more spiny than true blues (icaro, los gentiles, israeli true blue I got) in both sparcity and numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

only the macros being lots more spiny than true blues (icaro, los gentiles, israeli true blue I got) in both sparcity and numbers

I take it that you are referencing the Koehres T. macrogonus (at least one batch of the seed he has labeled as being T. macrogonus) as being the correct representation of the species, but regardless, being "more spiney" doesn't a species make. I doubt it would be good if we all started saying plants where T. macrogonus because they looked like "more spiney" T. peruvianus.

~Michael~

Edit because I forgot a "the."

Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I have one macrogonus from koehres that looks more and more like chiloensis to me every day, rough epidermis, huge wolly areoles, 8+ thick long spines etc. I ll post more pictures as it matures. To me, the name macrogonus doesnt make much sense, just an old name for peruvianus, from which they dont differ almost at all, or a completely different, ramdom mislabeled plant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Michael some days ago you were saying everything is a good species talking about that "huanosomething" cactus. Now you are talking about the supposed correct representation of the species.

I am not referring to any collectors clone as macrogonus, I have long decided to name the ones that are spinier macrogonus and the ones that are less spiny peruvianus "true blues" , to remember Teotz, yr friend. Of course this is not just number and length of spines, but also sparcity, like I said. Epidermis and areole differences are also there. The 'false' T.glaucus (EG, KK336, SAB) also seems like a macrogonus form.

Also I kind of regard macrogonus as T.peruvianus var macro , seeing how they got the same growth speed , more or less..

I doubt it would be good if we all started saying plants where T. macrogonus because they looked like "more spiney" T. peruvianus.

well I surely I have not helped create or preserve a hype, look elsewhere for that!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Don't act so ignorant of the questions surrounding both the name and identification issues of "T. macrogonus." You should know the background and if you don't then you pay no attention. Feel free to call whatever plant you want T. macrogonus based upon whatever grounds you want, but I've never done anything of the sort so free of caveats.

~Michael~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

well I hate this "I dont know and neither do you" style of the experts that claim they are not experts.

Which then transforms into "I know, but you dont seem to.... "

I dont know what you're saying about caveats, but like I said, I hate myths and hypes.

I already said I regard macrogonus as peruvianus var macrogonus, or it might be more right to say macrogonus var peruvianus, so what the fuck do you want?

PS: a good debater never skips arguements to defend himself, especially if he is not a cactus expert

PS2: things are more compicated if you are a trichocereus expert and state you're not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

My caveats ("a modifying or cautionary detail to be considered when evaluating, interpreting, or doing something") are used to indicate the uncertainty surrounding so much of the genus, and I'm doing nothing but pointing out the errors of your certainty in regards to your determinations regarding what makes a T. macrogonus, as though the characteristics you apply to what you believe is T. macrogonus are incapable of being present in plants that come from Huarochiri and could be called nothing but T. peruvianus. In addition, I have done nothing but dispel myths and hype and have taken criticism for that as much as for the certainty some believe I have.

As for my expertise, what do you take me to be?

~Michael~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

T. macrogonus appearing to be an intermediary between the T. pachanoi and the T. peruvianus. These three no doubt bear flowers that upon dissection would show them to be the same identical species, therefore the name of these three should be ...

I'm not so sure about this statement MrSmith. I know differing flower structure is often a solid basis to distinguish different species, but different species can sometimes have identical flower structure (I think).

Like you say, dna analysis should set the boundaries between species.

On a side note, naturally occurring hybrids are also recorded in literature using the same protocols as species and varieties. eg. Dendrobium x suffusum is officially listed for Dendrobium kingianum x Dendrobium gracilicaule (orchids). notice there's an x between Dendrobium and suffusum, to indicate it's a hybrid.

I imagine the majority of cacti will fall under this category (naturally occurring hybrids) between a few distinct species (and varieties of those species).

but once again, only dna testing will differentiate the core species -which may be quite rare in nature as pure stands. Usually the species represent the majority, but maybe for trichos the majority are actually slightly hybridised.

Then of course comes the conundrum of applying the correct names to those core species, and I got nothing for that :P

-Just a few random thoughts anyway...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks for clarifying Michael.

Well for one I thing you have a pretty good knowledge of many or most of the genus phenotypes and you have a keen IDing eye. I have learnt much reading your thoughts. I also dont see your views as certainties, but rather as a persistent uncertainty, and justified so in that.

I simply follow a different style. What you see as certainty in me, f.e. that this or that is a "macrogonus" is simply a decicion to distinct certain types of more spiny peruvs in my collection. No certainty at all there.

I took the time to read on macrogonus and peruvianus on trouts notes, but really, there's nowhere that idea of mine that macrogonoids are spinier than peruvs, nor is there any real distinction between them despite them being two different entries in the book. So its just an arbitrary idea of mine,

its an interesting idea pachanoi and peruvianus are the "peak phenotypes" of a very varied species. But the "swarm hybrids" approach seems more probable to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I will try to explain more , with pictures,

where I come from in all this pachanoi and peruvianus thing :

I start off with this pach "kk339" this bogan incognito sent me, I have to get it, cause its a freebie fro newbiies in sab, and thats how I get into cacti.. this fucker grows like a champ , and I later get to know this is kind of the archetypical pachanoi, the ecuadorian one... looks a bit with nz pachanoi and maybe juuls giant

or kind of...

P1120032.jpg[/url]

and then I get to have peruvianus like these (all different clones unless other wise stated)

which grow slower have bigger areoles and of different shapes and are really fucking blue!!!

P1120031.jpg

P1120022.jpg

P1120023.jpg

^^^^^

and following is the base of the above pic

P1120025.jpg

And I am told these are only the extremes of a single species, and all the differences are due to a large and very varied "species" - well fuck that, what good is taxonomy if they look so different and we dont even have definations of "vars" ??

cacti so different are the same species?? there must be some kind of hybridisation present here to mess with uz

then you got some like these

P1120030.jpg

^^^^^

this I traded with some guy from us, he was here for a while, it was the bluest or the fattest, or both of his peruvs..

its looks more macro in my eye, more spiny, hehehehe, just kidding

P1120034.jpg

and a tribute to EG macro/peruvs/glaucus whatever

P1120029.jpg

P1120027.jpg

P1120028.jpg

this is an interesting phenotype, interesting trick

I wonder if knuthianus could be a species, with this rib-wave pheno

if one has one to spare , I buy or trade for a cutting ... the knuthianus I mean , I dont have it yet

SO would you say michael, that all these are short spined peruvianoids/macrogonoids, NOT representative of the species??

where do the spines come into the equation when we talk about spinier forms? with black spines and reddish center ones... where do these colours come from? same species with so different colours of spines, sizes of areoles, and different growing speeds??

I remain LARGELY unconvinced...

macrogonus and peruv is the same?? sure! they have far more to share: skin colours, growing speed, areole shapes, pupping tendency

and what about cuzco and 'peruv' or even cuzco and "pach"? do they naturally cross ?

PS (666) : I read in Trout that magrogonus is bluer more in the new growth (the exact opposite with pachanoi!!!) is that real for peruvianus or macrogonus only?

Edited by mutant
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm so happy for your response, I have been fearful of a worse falling out and I would have regretted that. I appreciate the kind words about my knowledge and really do try and maintain as much accuracy as possible regarding what can at times be a very confusing subject, but I will also admit that my ideas have adjusted over time and therefore you might find differing statements or opinions today than those I might have carried just a few short years ago, and would always ask that people pay attention to the dates of my earlier posts just so as not to take old thoughts as current ones. I apologize if I have taken your words far to literally.

~Michael~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I suppose I should be the one apologising, making someone fearful of an internet dialogue cant be too good for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Mutant. If you research what maize used to look like and how it looks like now after intense selective breeding, these trichocereus variants won't seem to look "that" variable.

If you even look at all the dogs and how "hybrisizing" them produced poodles and mastiffs from the same ancestors.

My points is all variables can come from the same lineage easily.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

yeah but like you say it took INTENSIVE and SELECTIVE BREEDING to bring selected traits into the pool....

hybrid swarms, even triggered by introducing wanted plants by man in areas they didnt initially exist, is not intense selective breeding

BUT I am begining to suspect that trichocerei flowers are not so different from each other

if they were why dont we have side by side comparisons?

PS "My points is all variables can come from the same lineage easily" - then it sould be very easy for EG to create a trichocereus pachanoi with red flower , even WITHOUT using echinopsis hybrids with red flower :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

PS "My points is all variables can come from the same lineage easily" - then it sould be very easy for EG to create a trichocereus pachanoi with red flower , even WITHOUT using echinopsis hybrids with red flower :P

I believe it could be done, but is doubt EG has the space nor the time. All he has to do is grow thousands and thousands of T. pachanoi to a flowering size, then choose individuals (at least 2) that will display a color towards red, let's say very light pink (like those of pale pinkish lophophora flowers). Then he'll have to hand pollinate them, grow the F1 seeds and see if the trait was passed on, meaning he'll have to grow the F1 seeds to flowering stage. If the pinkish trait was passed on to few individuals. He'll have to choose the ones that display it more so he can hand pollinate them. If the F1 seeds don't display the pinkish trait he'll fertilize them with the mother plant that originally displayed that trait. And so on.

So probably he'll have to grow millions of pachanoi seeds to find the desired trait but one he finds it. He can bottle neck the gene pool of this plant to make more prominent in the coming generations. That's why he doesn't have the time nor space ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I am with ya

but even when you put the red flower echinopsis in the equation, you still need trichocereus build/phenotype and growth speed and not echinopsis, but you got to keep the flower colour ... its not only and particularly a matter of numbers , but also of years of growing for each f1 hybrid to mature and flower to be able to cross again...

put this in the wild, in our pachanoi/peruvianus riddle and its even slower

your point about dogs is absolutely spot on, and I have promised to myself to read a bit on how dogs can be so different...

all in all , cacti are totally NOT the same as annual plants like tomato or whatever, because the potential for change is slower

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here is a one year old Pachanoi Juul's Giant X Bridgesii Lumberjack.

It already has nice coloration to it.

The spines come out reddish and then turn white with red spots.

Pretty sweet but unfortunately the little guy is suffering from a bad scale infection at the base.

P1000951.JPG

P1000947.JPG

P1000862.JPG

P1000997.JPG

P1000997.thumb.JPG.531603a20f8165117e0f0e9dd0bd7891.JPG

P1000862.thumb.JPG.c9308a6ac51a1fcf0bf40f77a4278d5c.JPG

P1000947.thumb.JPG.6f472579b18ebfe86515fcfbf617761a.JPG

P1000951.thumb.JPG.67f630c8db11751c5c050fdf2787f53c.JPG

P1000997.thumb.JPG.531603a20f8165117e0f0e9dd0bd7891.JPG

P1000862.thumb.JPG.c9308a6ac51a1fcf0bf40f77a4278d5c.JPG

P1000947.thumb.JPG.6f472579b18ebfe86515fcfbf617761a.JPG

P1000951.thumb.JPG.67f630c8db11751c5c050fdf2787f53c.JPG

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

hey wes, i can't see much scale and looks healthy overall. did you recently repot it? it might benefit from being in a smaller pot until it's a bit bigger and more robust because that much soil will stay wet and will not encourage root development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, Micromegas said:

hey wes, i can't see much scale and looks healthy overall. did you recently repot it? it might benefit from being in a smaller pot until it's a bit bigger and more robust because that much soil will stay wet and will not encourage root development.

The little fella came to me slightly yellow at the base and very wrinkled there as well. I did find half a dozen scale spots and picked them off. I'm thinking the wrinkling is a sign of a pararsite. So far the yellow is fading since it's been re potted. My one year olds are all in 6" pots; the bottom is expanded clay balls, then a layer of fine and coarse coir, top dressed with clay balls. I'm sure there is a valid reason for encouraging root binding with small pots, but I am not convinced. I figure give them a little bit of growing media (coir) and give them mostly rock and clay and that should bind them up naturaly. I want the roots to search for water when it gets dry. I figure I avoided the big wet pot problem by having only 1/3 the material able to absorb water. Though this is only my second time growing cacti ever. I could be completely wrong. The tips are much appreciated mate. Cheers

Here he is today, dusted with a little DE.

This his better side.

20180623_085248.jpg

20180623_085248.thumb.jpg.94f9995e1abb98380aa95f41192fdb90.jpg

20180623_085248.thumb.jpg.94f9995e1abb98380aa95f41192fdb90.jpg

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

×