Is this a tricho? Peru X Pach?

[magical9]

[zed240]

Looks like a trichocereus to me.

Reminds me of some of the Scop X bridgesii hybrids I've seen, a bit heavier on the spination but still similar. Could this be a Scop X pach or maybe pach X scop?

[magical9]

ya the ribbing reminds me of scop and the spines look pachy . i wonder! the source i got it from had no clue.

[MrDoRight]

Your cactus Looks like the pachanoi from chile. Nice cactus

[Distracted]

Something about the spines and their colour don't look right to me.

[Evil Genius]

Hey Guys, I know this sounds kinda strange but I guess this could actually be Pilosocereus arrabidae. Havent observed the flower and am not sure if it has a Pilosocereus flower but this plant matches the appearance of the plant.

[zed240]

Hey EG, that pilosocereus you posted up has some pretty obvious notches/marks right in the middle between each set of areoles though (kinda reminds me of the marks on a browningia hertlingiana), I can't make those out on Magical's plant at all. Still might be a Pilosocereus but to my amateur eye they certainly have some differences.

Hey Magical, got some other pics taken at different angles for us to see?

[Evil Genius]

Hi Zed, not really experienced enough with Pilosocereus either. There are too many species where there are hardly any pictures available so cant really say if all of them have vnotches. I know that pilosocereus arrabidae has the v-notches in the botanical description. But yeah, the plant is weird in the sense that the difference between the Areoles at the lower part of the body is very small, similarly to what I know from Pilosocereus. So yeah, it´s possible this is a Trichocereus and there are species that look similar but from looking at this pic,I can´t really rule out the Pilosocereus. I mean, sure, I could guess but the plant totally reminded me about the arrabidea.

Does it have rounded knobby spine bases? What color are the spines of the lower part of the body? Would love to see more pics. Now I am intrigued.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Evil Genius

[magical9]

The spines appear to be the same all the way down. Maybe turning white on the oldest ones but never any longer or shorter spinations. I cant even remember if there is a mother plant that i got this cutting from. Pretty sure i found it laying on the ground in a pile of random cuttings the dude hadnt rooted from months prior. Ill have to try to find his mother plant and take pics.

[magical9]

Oh ya i posted about this plant last year. WITH PICS OF THE MOTHER PLANT ;)

[mutant]

pachanoid, pachanoi X ?

[Evil Genius]

Yeah, certainly not a Pilosocereus. Might be cuzco related somehow because old spine growth and new spine growth look very much like it. Not a typical cuzco but absolutely not a typical Pachanoi either. If I´d have to label that, i´d probably label it short spine cuzco or something like that. But there are some pachanoi with fairly long spines too and you´d have to watch this plant for a while to get to the bottom of it.

[M S Smith]

With the rampant creation of new hybrids for the last decade or more it's bound to become a little more difficult to identify plants as a particular species. By now we probably have plants grown as a known hybrids loosing their labels, getting called what they most look like, and then getting crossed with another plant that can't be discounted as a hybrid.

~Michael~

[magical9]

ill label it "Trichocereus var. Desirable?"

[Gunter]

Mike is dead on right.

ID is getting more difficult.

Many of us have even experienced known hybrids that pass as a parent. Though they are not that common. They are in circulation.

[M S Smith]

Mike is dead on right.

ID is getting more difficult.

Many of us have even experienced known hybrids that pass as a parent. Though they are not that common. They are in circulation.

Here's a good example of Gunter's point.

Both of these are [T. pachanoi "JuulsGiant" x T. peruvianus] x T. bridgesii "SS02". There is really nothing that would make me think either of these were anything other than T. bridgesii, the first looking more like the SS02, which none the less is regarded as a T. bridgesii. If the provenance of the SS02 is uncertain it itself could be the product of a similar cross. I look forward to more crosses as I think it only helps the entire genus as a whole, but all these hybrids don't help if you are interested in identification.

~Michael~

[Evil Genius]

You know, I had written this huge and extensive post about this today but ended up not submitting it. So yeah, Michael & Gunter this is not about you and rather my feelings that come up everytime someone mentions the whole hybrid/pure thing. Well, here is the thing. There are a couple of people around who are intentionally breeding hybrids but overall, the number is ridiculously low to all the countless populations that are in nature. I mean, I´d bet that most plants we see on a daily basis are not hybrids but just representatives of a certain local type and of course all of them are different, some are intermediates, some are natural hybrids. In Peru, people have been intentionally breeding San Pedro for hundreds and thousands of years. And they just planted what they felt like would be a good plant to mate their motherplant with. San Pedro have been traded, sold and bred by the locals all across the habitats.
Like, for centuries. And all that, without ever hearing the term "a pure species". You know, today, we can´t even say which were the very first San Pedros and what the word true species actually means, but at the same time, it should be our obligation to preserve it? Like, where draw the line? I wrote about this a couple of times already and I know you are aware of it, but whenever people talk about the ridiculously low number of breeders bastardizing the species, I feel like this is blown out of proportion.

And Michael and Gunter, I know you were merely mentioning the possibility of us encountering hybrids and this is not about you but my general feelings towards this issue. Sure, there are hybrids that look very unlike their parents and there already were a couple intergeneric species in nature, but they only occured within the range of the pollen and are not a problem or a threat. A greater Threat is the termination of populations caused by landscaping and building. And you know, natural hybrids are created in nature every day and no one cares about it or opens up a emergency workgroup to preserve the pure species. I mean, People like Knize sold all kinds of types, varieties and species throughout the whole world. Not Thousands of seeds but MILLIONS! And I don´t think I know more than 50-100 active breeders. That make like 5-10 crosses a year. Let it be 500 or 1000 who actively try to create interesting hybrids but I dont even think the number is that high. And most of them dont even sell or trade their seeds because they just do it for the lulz. I mean, the word "pure species" is flawed because the whole trichocereus genus has so many unidentified plants in it and some of the species are a botanical mess. Especially Trichocereus Macrogonus which was probably the same as Trichocereus Peruvianus anyway. And I mean, the plant was never found again in nature and still, people talk about it as a species as something that should be preserved, while it was on wooden legs to begin with. You know, how do you want to decide which "species" should be preserved and which one not? Is it even our right to make that decision? I mean, who am I to judge about what species should be preserved or which one shouldnt. Sure, we should make sure we dont exterminate a species, but a couple of hybrids every here and there wont hurt anyone. And I really mean that. They aren´t even close to the habitats and no one is interested to take a hybrid and replant it in a habitat. I mean, the plants that the San pedros we know today have originated from are probably extinct by now and with hindsight to the fact the whole look of a plant can dramatically change just within one generation, it´s pretty obvious that nature doesnt care about what we regard as a true species and just does what it´s been doing for millions of years. If it accepts the pollen, it´s an appropriate mating partner.

Again, I do NOT want to critcize anyone of you for wanting to preserve the species and I agree that it is our very duty to preserve the great amount of the plant kingdom that we inherited. But do not underestimate the great amount of variability that comes from nature itself. I mean, I´ve seen similar types before that were grown from seed labeled Macrogonus and I find it much more likely that this is just one more type of a San pedro that you can encounter in nature. If you hear hooves, think horse not zebra. But yeah, I understand that theoretically, we can encounter hybrids and that´s why I see less and less purpose in differentiation between Trichocereus Peruvianus, Macrogonus, Cuzcoensis. Because there is not an obvious line that could be drawn here and those species are extremely variable. I respect you both and I think hybrids aren´t a problem.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Evil Genius

[zed240]

Great thoughts, EG.

I think along the same lines as you.

Another little anecdote from the dark, dusty depths of my own mind - since all trichocereus in habitats grew from a seed once upon a time, all plants in nature must be "hybrids" anyway since trichs aren't self fertile. (peru aint full o' fuckin' spach!) So if we humans hand-pollinate and create a plant that absolutely matches the man made botanical description once it matures, why can't that hybrid be named with what it aligns?

Short of some kind of DNA testing of habitat plants and then doing the same DNA testing of hybrids that look exactly the same. Determining what differences there are other than the ones we puny humans can detect with our eyes, how can you be so sure that all the bridgesii in habitat aren't just some 5000 year old natural hybrid between a pach, peru and another bridgesii anyway?

[Gunter]

I agree EG.

I prefer hybrids myself as it is.

[Gunter]

My only point is that ID can be very tricky sometimes, especially with open pollinated seeds. Many cactus breeders are unaware that interspecies hybrids can occur. I know a pediocactus and opuntia breeder who sells his seeds to a popular major seed vendor in the USA, he does not believe that cacti can create hybrids and all of his seeds are open pollinated!

These seeds are sold under specific names with collection data, but are very unlikely to actually breed true. He grows plants within meters of each other which are in nature isolated by hundreds or even around thousand kilometers. They all flower at the same time...

I encourage hybrids, but in reptile, spider and Roach collecting and breeding communities they are considered blasphemy by many.

[Evil Genius]

Yeah, I really didnt intend to post it because I was concerned you might see it as critique, which it is not. I mean, there are so many people with so many great thoughts around and that´s what I love about this place. You know, those discussion lead to people investigating and trying to learn more and more. So yeah, the sole purpose of my post was that I am a very passionate hybride creator and I want to write about why I do it and why I dont think that what I do is a problem to the populations. I know we here come across hybrids fairly more oftenly than other people on the open market and I know you´ve been only referring to that possibility. Absolutely no offense intended in anything I wrote. It´s just that I am sometimes faced negative voices that are on a crusade to save the pure species and I wanted to write something about it. I mean, most of the people who are criticizing me for what I do are the same type that want to preserve the german Thorhammer or whatever you would call that shit. I mean, I am used to hearing so many different opinions and I totally accept them all. Just felt like it was important to write that if I would consider what I do as a valid threath, I would not do it anymore.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Evil Genius

[mutant]

Nice thoughts...

Indeed it boils down to purism... well purism of any kind, be it ecological, hobbist or political, its prone to lead to strong but stupid opinions. There's no threat from tricho hybridisation, life and even tricho's are evolving, that's the natural way of life.

I agree with Zed also: there are no pure species, just the "phenotype" we consider as true for a species.... So, if it fits the bridgesii description, its a bridgesii, that's why PC pachanoi is a pachanoi, even though it might not be a "true" (as in nature) species..

[M S Smith]

Hum, funny. I was offering no criticism of hybrids only that with the increase in the amounts of them answering the question of what species a particular plant is, not in habitat, but in cultivation, is going to become a bit more tricky. Like I said, hybrids only help the entire genus as a whole.

~Michael~

[mutant]

just adding that I am not criticising anyone in this thread, but rather a both 'community' and general phenomenon, as mentioned partly by EG.

Also maybe some natural hybrids might also be difficult to match with a true species, as at least some of us or most seem to regard hybdridising of Trichos is something already hapening in habitats. But for such a hypothesis I lack the knowledge of details..

Could bats or birds pollinate tricho flowers? What are some positions of different species in close distance to another? (like say scopulicola and taquimbaslensis which seem to occur near to oneother in bolivia, which was discussed in another thread)

Also, it seems fruits are a cool way to tell , so it would be interesting to note if the hybrid fruit is phenotypically an intermediate between parent fruits.

link to a cool thread with fruit photos

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36532&hl=

Edited March 21, 2015 by mutant

[magical9]

interesting ...

EG you have a way with words yo.