ID help please

[Gollum]

Hi all,

I have two Trichocereus at home. One from SAB and one from bunnings. I have been looking at the spines closely and have noticed some difference. I was hoping someone could help me out with an accurate identification please.

These are the two in question. The one on the right is bunnings, one the left SAB's

This is the SAB Trich, Redish sort spines and quite a bit longer than the bunnings one

And this is the bunnings job, White spines, very short.

Anyone got some suggestions?

Thank you EDIT- Sorry i should have been a bit clearer in my question. Yes, they are both T.pachanoi, i was just wondering why one has different spines that the other. Different locations? Age?

Edited October 16, 2006 by Gollum

[gerbil]

Both pachanoi IMO...nice plants :D

[apothecary]

Maturity and genetics would be the two components of my answer.

[Tripitaka]

The larger of the two looks typically Backeberg.

[sobriquet]

Wow. i don't know what other Bunnings are like, but all the ones around here only have small cacti with cute labels!

Nothing like the monsters I sometimes see posted here and stated as being sourced from Bunnings. Maybe there's a section I'm not looking at?

I was under the impression (obviously false) that Bunnings only sold T. scopulicola and spachianus?

Are there any Bunnings' in Brisbane where such large specimens are readily available?

[Humanfuel]

Wow. i don't know what other Bunnings are like, but all the ones around here only have small cacti with cute labels!

Nothing like the monsters I sometimes see posted here and stated as being sourced from Bunnings. Maybe there's a section I'm not looking at?

I was under the impression (obviously false) that Bunnings only sold T. scopulicola and spachianus?

Are there any Bunnings' in Brisbane where such large specimens are readily available?

Hey Sobriquet......

I have often seen +- 30cm T.pachanoi tip cuttings at the Bunnings in Burleigh on the Gold Coast.....

..not too sure about in Brissie though.....!!!!! Next time you down here.... pop in ... and you might be lucky.....!!!!!!

[transDiMenTional]

off topic but I love burleigh.. good memories

[Gollum]

Bunnings in Nerang. At the time i bought the pach they had T. pachanoi, T. scopulicola, and T.spachianus. I dont think they get them in very regularly.

Keep an eye out though, this warm weather might bring them in ,plus the looming level 4 water retrictions that are about to come into place in south east QLD. I imagine there would be high demand for cactus succulents and other drought hardy plants this year.

Oh and what is Backeberg Trip?

[M S Smith]

Check out my comments regarding the first two cacti pictured in this thread at this thread.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Well well well, what do you know. I do hope everyone reads my comments that I linked up to in the above thread, but let me condense them for this one so that I can follow up here in a bit.

I'm with Archaea in no longer seeing T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus as different species, but with one caveat; I do not think the so-called "Backeberg Clone" as T. pachanoi at all as it doesn't fit the descriptions of the species provided by either Britton & Rose or Backeberg.

The first photo in this thread shows on the left what I would consider more along the lines of the original B&R and Backeberg described T. pachanoi while the one on the right is the so-called "Backeberg clone" that doesn't even fit Backeberg's descriptions of T. pachanoi. Just how the plant on the right came to be called the "Backeberg clone" is seemingly a mystery, but likely because it was being called T. pachanoi due to superficial resemblance to the "true" T. pachanoi and was common throughout collections. I would be extremely curious to locate photos of the T. pachanoi Backeberg claimed to have introduced himself, but I doubt it would look like the plant on the right, but I bet it would look much more like that on the left in Gollum's photo.

I was confused for a long time on this issue and it wasn't until I took this "pseudo-Backeberg clone" (my own term) out of the picture surrounding northern and central Peru T. pachanoi/peruvianus that I started to see how these two "species" could be considered in fact the same species.

I would very much like to find photos of this "pseudo-Backeberg clone" in nature, but I haven't been able to; this while plants like that on the left in Gollum's photo seem to populate the Andes from Ecuador to central Peru, and in cases such as the Torres & Torres, all the way to Chile. So just what is the plant on the right? Well I am starting to think it closer in relation to T. bridgesii than to the plants of Peru. What is of particular interest is the similarity of this "pseudo-Backeberg clone" to the T. riomizquensis of NMCR and Sacred Succulents (who probably got theirs from NMCR). Now of course I now need to see if plants like this NMCR/SS T. riomizquensis actually grow along the Rio Mizque in Bolivia.

Archaea once mentioned Backeberg locating T. pachanoi in Bolivia, but I lack any other mention of this besides Archaea's. Wouldn't that be interesting if my "peudo-Backeberg clone" was Backeberg's Bolivian "T. pachanoi." But excuse me please for such wild speculation.

Now what I would like to add is that I have found what I believe are three photos of the true "Backeberg clone" within Backeberg's Cactus Lexicon; illustrations no. 262, 297 and 396. Here are Backeberg's own comments regarding T. pachanoi:

T. pachanoi, Britton & Rose

Body ± tree-like, to 6 meters high; branches numerous, bluish-green, frosted at first; Ribs 6—8, broad, rounded, with transverse depressions over the areole; Spines 3—7, dissimilar, to 2 cm long., dark yellow to brown; spines mostly completely absent on cultivated plants, which is the reason why this excellent stock is well-liked for grafting; flower to 23 cm long., white, with blackish hair—Ecuador (Chanchan valley).

Some 30 years ago I was responsible for introducing this species, which is now regarded as the best grafting stock.

Seeing that Backeberg mentions its value as grafting stock I looked through the Cactus Lexicon's photos for grafted plant and in each of the illustrations mentioned above you can clearly see plants that are quite identical in nature to the plant on the left in Gollum's picture above, and which fit Backeberg's descriptions of T. pachanoi. Two are in black & white and one is in color. It wouldn't be a stretch I would think to believe that these graft bases are the true Backeberg clone, a plant somewhat different that which has become known as the Backeberg clone, but which I will likely refer from this point fowards as the "pseudo-Backeberg clone."

I would note of course that this "true" Backeberg clone would only be representational of one population of plants from the Chanchan Valley in Ecuador, but that this particular sort of Trichocereus has a very broad distribution due to its historical ceremonial use and that there are multiple variations of it due to adaptation and more importantly, breeding, natural, or possibly selective breeding. Under this perspective the plants such as Gollum's on the left, the so-called "short spined T. peruvianus," the Kimnach T. pachanoi, Mesa Garden's "small spine" T. peruvianus from Huancabamba, and even T. macrogonus, are representations of T. pachanoi. The T. peruvianus plants such as Icaros', the Los Gentiles, the Luther Burbank, and the GF, all appear to be related, but may possibly be more wild forms that haven't been selected to the same degree as the T. pachanoi from northern Peru and Ecuador. The Peruvian T. macrogonus may seemingly be an intermediate form between the shorter spined forms of the north and the longer spined and thicker columned plants of central Peru, particularly around Matucana.

Now the real question I want answered is exactly what is the origins of the "pseudo-Backeberg clone," a plant which as I have mentioned already carries traits similar to T. bridgesii in my opinion, particularly in regards to the white flower hairs, especially since it looks as though quite every other plant I have already mentioned as coming from Peru and Ecuador has darker hairs, even black hair as in Britton & Rose's and Backeberg's descriptions of T. pachanoi.

Well there it is friends. I hope this all makes sense. First I addressed certain T. peruvianus in fact being forms of T. cuzcoensis, and now I hope I have shed some light on what is the "true" T. pachanoi. I would of course like to offer my appreciation to Archaea for many of his past comments which helped me understand this latter issue.

I will look to scan Backeberg's photo to post.

~Michael~

Edited October 28, 2006 by M S Smith

[M S Smith]

The following botanical preservation should help support my contention. I have made the scan to actual size.

~Michael~

[BlackDragon]

just curious michael, but why is at the lower right section the plate was labeled "trichocerus strictus" which has been penciled in to be t.pacahoi? anyu thoughts on why there is a change??

Also it seems to have other changes made in 1976? was this when it was re-edited/posted into a new archive?

Sorry spp error edit.

Edited October 23, 2006 by BlackDragon

[occidentalis]

Thanks for that Michael, very interesting to see the real thing. Those spines are huge compared to the plants we all call T. pachanoi.

[M S Smith]

Here are the photos from Backeberg's Cactus Lexicon that are illustrative of what I think is the real "Backeberg Clone."

~Michael~

[BlackDragon]

No answers for my questions Michael??

[M S Smith]

just curious michael, but why is at the lower right section the plate was labeled "trichocerus strictus" which has been penciled in to be t.pacahoi? anyu thoughts on why there is a change??

Also it seems to have other changes made in 1976? was this when it was re-edited/posted into a new archive?

I would imagine that the application of "T. strictus" was a mistake and was then corrected. I am curious about what the word or letters (initials) are that are immediately below the marked out word. There appears to be two different authors to these two labels at the bottom as the darker and lighter writing on each is done by different authors.

The only cactus I can locate with a similar name would be Opuntia stricta, but there are other genera with the species name "strictus."

I think the two labels on the bottom were concurrent; the one on the left addressing the photo and the one on the right addressing the botanical specimen. When the different people put their writing, and in what orders, is a guess, but I would imagine the darker pen came latter. In 1976 you have the Isotype label applied (right above the bottom right label was written "insect damage 6/23/76" which accounts I think for the poor quality of the flower itself). At the top the change to Echinopsis was of course the newest re-labeling and reclassification.

~Michael~

[BlackDragon]

Thanks for clearing that up ms, i tried to increase the resolution on photoshop to see more but not much cam of that. I was also wondering what the "** damage" was, ah its insect. Thanks

The strictus thing threw me, as I have never herd any similar synonyms for pachanoia as strictus. Wonder where they got that from? I hope its wasnt actually a strictus relabeled as pachanoi?!!

There also seems to be something erased above the insect damage to thr right of the thin black box line.... any clues there?

Thanks for the scan anyways ms, did you manage to get any more herbarium scans??

Bd

[M S Smith]

Here is a "short spined T. peruvianus" (T. pachanoi form) that has really nice visible transverse depressions. You can see by looking at the close up of the tip that these are formed as folds above the areoles at their origins. The are sort of like remnents of tubercle formations. These sorts of folds are not on the "pseudo-Backeberg clone" tips to any significant degree at all, regardless of the transverse markings.

~Michael~

[sobriquet]

Here is a "short spined T. peruvianus" (T. pachanoi form) that has really nice visible transverse depressions. You can see by looking at the close up of the tip that these are formed as folds above the areoles at their origins. The are sort of like remnents of tubercle formations. These sorts of folds are not on the "pseudo-Backeberg clone" tips to any significant degree at all, regardless of the transverse markings.

~Michael~

Nice observation.

You can see the transverse lines in the small pachanoi seedling I recently acquired but not the peruvianus (yet?).

[M S Smith]

Here are Trout’s words from Page 82 of Trouts Sacred Cacti 3rd Edition:

Besides the Chanchan Valley in Ecuador, and the Huancabamba region of Peru, Backeberg mentions that it is especially cultivated in the Cochabamba Province near Angostura in Bolivia around 2560 meters, but that it apparently exists in the wild there as well. [Cardenas is said to have illustrated this occurance with a photo.] Dickson 1978 made the claim that she found it to be most common in Bolivia over 11,000 feet.

Below is the only photo I have located of a Trichocereus from Cochabamba after a bit of searching. Of all the plants that I have viewed this one most closely matches the “pseudo-Backeberg clone” as I have been discussing it. This plant, like the “pseudo-Backeberg clone,” is lacking the transverse depression, lacks the spine length mentioned on T. pachanoi by both Britton & Rose and Backeberg, and in fact is quite spineless from appearances (though this had been mentioned as possible on T.pachanoi in the published descriptions. This Cochabamba plant also appears to have the white flower hair common to the “peudo-Backeberg clone.” Could this plant be the common “T. pachanoi” that we have in our collections and have mistakenly referred to as the “Backeberg clone” for years? I for one am seriously interested in viewing more of the Trichocereus from Cochabamba to say the least. Maybe this plant, like you mention Archaea, is an “otherwise an exceptional specimen” introduced by Backeberg. Could this Cochabamba plant possibly be a selected spineless variant of T. bridgesii? This is mere speculation for sure, but speculation worth exploring.

~Michael~

[PD.]

This is all getting a little confusing Michael https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/uploads/emoticons/default_wacko.png

The backeberg isnt a backeberg its a psuedo backeberg, the "real" pach is a backeberg and the psuedo backeberg is something else

backeberg, backeberg, backeberg.

what do you make of these Michael?

https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/6751/img0158sh6.jpg&key=d93c1e9e1f964082ee000d332daa83c0295a56846d48c594cd4cbbd9a118ac1e

https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9410/img0159xd3.jpg&key=c5c1bbff65aeae156fa726791946ec9922551934e1acafb96dfd0d9b5f5e744c

https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8247/img0160kw2.jpg&key=dafbf8ee0aa841430776e19dc8ede0419abe068b838501f8764cd5ba288449f3

https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9614/img0161og7.jpg&key=d325551c3ed2ab659cd1acaa379e01e80ebc7b90bbdc5404f3406699bb85e19b

https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6483/img0163nl1.jpg&key=e40aa8182a9c007448cc817d605d49b77fbf1109647f012490ec891c23e5dc13

Edited October 25, 2006 by Passive Daemon

[M S Smith]

I know it's confusing, but it is not about nomenclature at all, it is about identification, and is all I am attempting to do is show that the plant that we have long been calling the "Backeberg clone" is not the plant described by Backeberg as T. pachanoi, and can therefore be referred to as the "pseudo-Backeberg clone" to maintain a simblance of its prior name while reflecting that it isn't what Backeberg himself considered the T. pachanoi clone he introduced and idicated was good for grafting (as shown in the photos above from his Cactus Lexicon).

From my point of view if people go on and keep calling the same old plant as always the "Backeberg clone" when it likely isn't, and when there is more support for the "Backeberg clone" being a different plant, then they are the ones who are supporting the confusion. I'm trying to clarify something that no one apparently thought to question.

It's confusing, but I do hope that if something is confusing it doesn't make us throw our hands up and go "bullshit," but rather has us ask questions for clarrification. I'm will to answer whatever is thrown at me as I don't think the position I have taken in this thread is bullshit.

So, doesn't anyone see my point as a contribution and "get it"?

~Michael~

[apothecary]

Sure Mike, I get what you've been saying, I just like to sit back and watch, we have no popcorn icon here like at the nook <___base_url___>/uploads/emoticons/default_newimprovedwinkonclear.gif

That is some fat freakin marginatus in the background Phleb <___base_url___>/uploads/emoticons/default_smile.png

[M S Smith]

As for your photos Passive, I think a week ago everyone would have told you that all but possibly the first are the "Backeberg clone." (Someone would have kicked in that the first was a hybrid of sorts as they always do.) As for the first, well I hope that everyone doesn't think I am simply throwing up two branches and stuffing everything in them as I am not. Certainly with the interest in Trichocereus that has exploded in the last decade and a half (along with the internet of course) there have been lots of new plants imported, spread and hybridized and the variation is growing. Like I said, I'm just arguing that what we have been calling the "Backeberg clone" is wrong, that's all.

~Michael~

[sobriquet]

Hi Michael.

Your posts have been very illuminating rather than confusing. But I am a newbie to this, so I don't have the baggage of years of apparently erroneous classification.

Your posts here have made me understand that the longer spined varieties I have, that were labeled T. pachanoi which I was loathe to accept are in all likelihood accurate. I also understand and accept/agree that the pachanoi - peruvianus may in fact be a spectrum rather than discretely identifiable species.

The situation with these is in my opinion very much like modern cannabis varieties derived from indica/sativa with much hybridisation and vagueness in parentage of particular phenotypes.

Peace.

BTW, the second photo in PD's post has "V" shaped depressions above areoles that are very reminiscent of what I see on Eileen; is that suggestive of bridgesii phenotype?

[M S Smith]

The following was written for other forum regarding the idea that T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus either are or are not the same species.

I think the variation is great enough to justify a difference in the two [T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus].

If you call the following photo #1 a T. pachanoi and the following photo #2 T. peruvianus then I can clearly see how someone can see enough variability to justify some sort of distinct species classification between the two. The problem though is that #1 is the "pseudo-Backeberg clone" I haven't found to be represented in Ecuador or Peru, and #2 is the T. peruvianus "Blue Form" which is quite indistinct from the old KK242 claimed to be from Matucana but which isn't represented in that location either. This second plant is though rather similar to T. cuzcoensis and clearly doesn't fit the descriptions of T. peruvianus from the primary literature.

#1 T. pachanoi "pseudo-Backeberg"

#2 T. peruvianus "Blue Form" KK242 sort

Now here are plants that actually do fit T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus in both description and in their locations. #3 is the T. pachanoi "Kimnach" from northern Peru and #4 is a T. peruvianus. As I said, both of these match in description and location and therefore should supersede the first two plants in representing the "true" forms of T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus.

#3 T. pachanoi "Kimnach"

#4 T. peruvianus

If you look at #1 and #2 they are clearly different plants and can't even be considered variations of a single species. The thing is though that I argue that both are misidentified and have the wrong names applied to them. But if you look at #3 and #4 you can start to see how one might more easily consider them variation of a single species; the primary difference being the length of the spines. Otherwise the general appearance of these latter two plants are fairly similar and possibly not enough to differentiate into "species" to the same degree as the plants in the former two photos.

I hope that at least clarifies why I think what I do. No need to agree of course, but at least you can see where I'm coming from.

~Michael~

Edited November 13, 2006 by M S Smith