37 replies to this topic

[kadakuda]

here is the kicker. they are all the same hybrid, from the same fruit. not only that they are all the exact same plant, but cuttings/grafts from the same seed. the variegated was a total shocker to me as none of the others are showing it...there are some notes and theories on why it happened, but nothing concrete so pointless to say i guess.

these are L. koehresii mother with L. fricii pollen. now i assume they are hybrids because they resemble fricii so much, and the seeds came from a koehresii, so it seems logical that they are a mix...but there is always doubt

but without having a human breeding them and keeping detailed records, how would one tell all of this? never mind know they are the very same plant.


now fricii is notoriously variable...in fact they all have a certain degree of variance, but i think fricii then williamsii are the most variable. at least in what i have seen.

I also have about 100 "T. pachanoi" plants that originated from one single cutting that i chopped up and divided up over the last 3 years....there is much variability, especially in concern to how they are described in pubs like andersons or britton and rose books.....which alone kind of points out just how useful the current descriptions are (meaning they arent)...like trout and guys here point out a lot. Lophophora just seem to be slower growing and therefor less liekly to see the possible variance within one plant.


i also have a williamsii with 6 heads and 6, 7, 8 rib counts. now i am well aware these are just in between but they are super clean looking. this reminds me of the older publications describing various Lophophora (and their syns) and one pointing out that the different rib counts were in fact different varieties, despite coming from the very same cactus....i believe this was Rouhier, but not positive. i can double check if there is interest. not sure how important to this conversation this is, but i am trying to point out that before it was accepted to be true, 3 different plants from a single plant....based solely on rib count.

here is a prime example of the earlier taxonomic work's flaw


perhaps 100 years from now some guy on his hover sofa typing on his virtual iphone will be laughing at the way we do things in our time lol. but its all mostly progressive.

[Gunter]

here is the kicker. they are all the same hybrid, from the same fruit. not only that they are all the exact same plant, but cuttings/grafts from the same seed.

Amazing!
At least one of the plants seems intermediate of the two parents.
One of them looks more like one parent than the other.
One of them looks unlike either.
It makes perfect sense, but does illustrate the difficulty of novel specimens in terms of knowing what they are.

As a cactus collector myself, having over a thousand specimens of Trichocereus, and only a few repeating clones, I know ranges as opposed to counts. This works rather well, them employment of a range, because it is based upon populations and not specimens. It is important to note that exceptions by definition help illustrate the limitations of normality simply by being exceptional. Thus exceptions which fall outside the range more help to illustrate the value of the range in terms of practicality, that they potentially undermine the ability of a description to be accurate.
For example, in term of a range T bridgesii, aka Echinopsis langeniformis, has a range of 6 +/-2 ribs. Specimens with more and less ribs are not unknown, but are not typical. What I would call another form of the same species, known as T. peruvianus, has 7 +/-2 ribs for it's range. Exceptions are known, but are not normal. Thus bridgsii, in my observation, has an average range of ribs of from 4-8, while its peruvianus relative has from 5-9. Subtle distinction perhaps, but remarkably consistent and illustrated by the occasional yet rare exceptions.

In this regard the range of traits in Lophophora can be read as a vocabulary, composed of distinct words and letters, or traits and alleles. As a range of averages, such things as rib count, which do vary, can still be reliable traits.

The averages of rib counts for hybrids of T peruvianus forms and T bridgesii forms is invariably that of their parents, one or the other. The intermediate of both forms still overlapping in the acceptable range for both forms. Of course, range averages are nothing new to cactus descriptions.
I think that in the case of L. williamsii, var echinata, for example, that the trait range variation justifies recognition.

Edited by Archaea, 07 February 2010 - 07:34 AM.

[san p]

sorry to hiack thread,but there was abit of talk about mixed genetics of astrophytum's.
heres a pic of some of my astro asterias,one of which has a different coloured flower to any ive seen.any thoughts?

a.asterias
 P1070282.JPG   63.69K   4 downloads

and heres a a,asterias x a.capricorne flower, just for the sake of it.
 P1070284.JPG   62.83K   4 downloads

[kadakuda]

they can have white-dark red-purple flowers. Astrophytum, due to insane amounts of breeding in the greenhouse, are so far past being hybridized. yours seem to be so as well, judging by the raised ribs.

first few generation crosses some people claim to be able to tell...but frankly i doubt anyone can tell what both parents are of the majority of astro mutts. yours clearly are asterias, but the otehr could be anything as its so subtle.


Archaea. ranges. good i agree somewhat. but i have to say that exceptions cannot be disregaarded. if XX plant normally has say 4-7 ribs, but is known to rarely have 3-19....then you must accept that it can have 3-19 ribs. example would be bridg monstrose having 2 ribs... would it be good to say this in teh description? maybe not, but a note of it as a monstrose form would be needed (in my mind).


the thing with trichocereus taxonomy, or echinopsis i should say, is that liek you mentioned tey overlap. they overlap in so many areas, their descriptions, are quite frankly, rather pointless and a waste of ink to write them more thtan once and call them different speceis.


ABC plant has 5-7 ribs (can have 4-9), 1-2 central spines, 4-10 radials. Ovary naked, flower whitish to pink, to 4cm. etc.....

XYZ plant has 6-8 ribs (can have 5-10), 1 central spine, 5-9 radials. Ovary naked, flower pink, to 3cm. etc.....


ok there are 2 shitty examples cause i dont wanna type more or think too much about it lol. not only this they can cross breed, even naturally.....

now i have this unknown plant.

it has 6 ribs, 1 central, 7 radials, naked ovary and 2.5cm light pink flowers. What is it?

it can be both.

things like this with such minor differences as rib counts, which are known to vary/change in a single plant, or even stem, is not, in my opinion, means to divide them at the species rank. they are jsut too subtle difference and can in fact change a lot within an individual, and they reproduce beautifully together. by these standards, africans, asians and europeans should not be the same species. men and women shouldnt be the same species either for that matter....

groin area extended, chest flattened, broader at the shoulders, generally more hair covering the body. Large hard lump in throat area.
--------->Homo malensis

groin area depressed, chest of well pronounced to varying degrees, generally narrower build, torso generally naked and lacking much facial hair. Throat lacking hard lump.
--------->Homo femalensis

why are we, male and female, thought of as the same species? really? morhpologically we are WAY different!!! men go dicks, adams apples,women have breasts, vaginas and all kinds of tubes n what not to make babies with. in the cactus world this would be enough to separate them at the species level, maybe even genus. so why are we the same species? i think it is most likely to do with the fact that we are able to produce viable offspring...but so can trichs and numerous other cacti.

same goes for race....maybe "race" can be used in plants as an official categorization. africans and say white people are physically quite different. colour, bones, facial featurs etc. but we can hybridize, so tehy call us the same species.

[whisperz]

I'll let you know if the jourdy is self-fertile or not when it flowers....

 DSC04782.JPG   186.96K   21 downloads

whisperz,...

[Gunter]

I agree about the exceptions being important to the picture.
They help define the boundaries of the ranges by being exceptions.

I also think of the San Pedro cactus group as a single species in general, though each form or sub-species is worth noting too.

The dark throats of Astrophytum flowers are also common to some of the other groups in the tribe, I consider this a very interesting trait worth investigation.

[kadakuda]

care to elaborate on the astro remark? interested to read what you think.

what do you mean by the "san pedro group" as in the commonly mixed up trichs that flaot around everywhere?

here is a single plant divided up and such over the course of 3 years now. these came from royer at the shroomery. these pics are all from one single plant.

second thought maybe they aren't as variable as i thought...but there are some nifty ones going on, more pics later when i remember.

[Gunter]

care to elaborate on the astro remark? interested to read what you think.

Some of the Astrophytum have a two tone flower with a darker spot in the center, as do some Thelocactus, some Ferocactus and some Echinocactus, but not all members of the group have this. Compare flowers of many species from these genera and you will see what I mean.

what do you mean by the "san pedro group"...?

OK, T peruvianus, T bridgesii and T pachanoi are all called San Pedro in Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador among other places. The idea that San Pedro means T pachanoi is totally and completely erroneous.
More than that, all of these forms, and others like scop, pallarensis, satanensis, these are all the same species, as are the bridgesii, the pachanoi and the peruvianus are all the same species. They are all quite distinct forms of the plant that has been widely cultivated for over a thousand years, and seemingly for nearly 8,000+ years. (Andean seed cache of Lima beans, Chile pepper and San Pedro seeds have been found in a cave and dated to 8-10K reference to this is:
The Incas and their Ancestors, The Archaeology of Peru
Michael Moseley , I forget what page but it is early in the book.

Note that the seeds of San Pedro are not known to be eaten, nor are the seeds of the chiles in general, but the seeds of the chiles and beans are removed and stored for agricultural use, the seed cache suggests that the SP seed was also stored for cultivation and that indicates that it is among the most ancient of cultivated crops as are chiles and beans.

On the note of SP cacti, the so called Kimnach pachanoi grows like a fat blue peruvianoid under some conditions, but with a little less light it looks like a pachanoi! Similar to this in growth is the Huanucoensis, which looks like a unique Peruvianoid under some conditions, but with a little less light looks like a pachanoi selection!

I have tons of SP "hybrids" many look so much like one of their parents that if I didn't have the labels I'd be screwed in making the ID.

[Gunter]

Check this out, I bought seed sold as T andalgalensis X Tt pachanoi (PC) and grew this:
 SANY0003.JPG   783.45K   11 downloads
Here is the parent:
http://trout.yage.ne...is_SS_c_JPG.htm
and here is the other parent:
http://largelyaccura..._compared_s.jpg
http://largelyaccura..._compared_f.jpg
and here is the cross again:
 SANY0017.JPG   163.79K   9 downloads
 SANY0007.JPG   187.41K   6 downloads
 SANY0006.JPG   134.28K   6 downloads
Now assuming you knew the parents well enough, if you happened across the from I am showing, would you consider it another form of the andalgalensis? A red flowered variety perhaps? How obvious is it that one of the parents is the pachanot PC plant?
Or is the plant selfed? The growth of it seems off for the andalgalensis, I believe it is the hybrid is was sold as.

It has a sister:
 SANY0018.JPG   152.2K   7 downloads
 SANY0019.JPG   78.21K   7 downloads
Would you be able to tell that the two are from the same seed batch from the same cross?
I can't, but I have labels! Again if this formed a population it would be seen as a variant of the andalgalensis, genetic work would show the mitochondrial DNA to be andalgalensis too. I think if we examine known hybrids like these with the methods being used to work on cactus taxonomy right now that we will see the faults of parsimony rather clearly.

Here is the other one again, before it opened:
 SANY0023.JPG   171.42K   6 downloads

[Gunter]

One more to show the shape of the red one:
 SANY0005.JPG   131.74K   6 downloads
Verses the SS mother plant:
 T_andalgalensis_SS_b_JPG.jpg   95.39K   6 downloads

And verses the pachanot flower:
 pachanot_flower_side.jpg   50.28K   2 downloads

If you look at the yellow version of the hybrid you can see that the red sepals are not on the mother, but are on the pachanot and are on the hybrid. That is to say that a few traits can be seen upo close examination, that are hybrid traits, but that in general this is not apparent. The growth of the hybrid is so close to the mother that it could easily persuade a collector that it was merely a form of andalgalensis, indeed it has in the past!

Or is it selfed and I am imagining things?

Edited by Archaea, 19 February 2010 - 02:20 AM.

[kadakuda]

Some of the Astrophytum have a two tone flower with a darker spot in the center, as do some Thelocactus, some Ferocactus and some Echinocactus, but not all members of the group have this. Compare flowers of many species from these genera and you will see what I mean.

yes i realize they have similar flowers, but what points are you connecting with these?

lately i have been thinking more and more about pollen morphology (as is used in many other families) but also *inside* the ovary. im starting to wonder that perhaps flower morphology as far as outer obvious characteristics are not quite so important as inner workings. for example, certain size/shape of pollen is more readily germinated on various species' stigmas, and perhaps the pollen tubes are different. this seems appropriate in hybridization. pollen tubes may only grow XX mm in this species but grow XXXXmm in another species. i would think* that things with long big ol flowers like echinopsis, hylocereus, cereus etc all have long growing tubes to reach all the way down to the ovary, but things like obregonia, lophophora, turbs etc may not be physically able to grow so long...which *may* be why cutting the style in various breeding programs helps a lot, simply to allow the tube to reach the ovule.

i am thinking these things, at least in my opinion with reprodcution playing a big role in species definition, would be incredibly important. i have looked a bit at pollen of various cacti, but have a real bitch of a time cleaning them and making slides...practicing though. also not really able to setup anythign to watch pollen tubes grow, yet anyway. but i suspect they play a role not only in possible length but perhaps other ways. i also wonder if perhaps an ovule is only accepting of a special shape, or perhaps chemical to allow fertilization? for example, a chimpanzee cannot fertilize a human (i dont think???) so there must be some kind of block in place, because theoretically animals can have sex, just as pollen from a cedar tree can land on our peyote, but they dont fertilize each other.

many look so much like one of their parents that if I didn't have the labels I'd be screwed in making the ID.

lol, feel ya bro. labels are a wonderful thing. i also color code my pots with electrical tape as to species/hybrids and use tags for individual plant codes. its much nicer now that i can just see yellow and know what speceis it is without fussing with a tag.

[kadakuda]

just saw your new post.

great example...i can say with 100% certainty i would not be able to label them. always doubt. and in some cases there isnt even a clue.

I think if we examine known hybrids like these with the methods being used to work on cactus taxonomy right now that we will see the faults of parsimony rather clearly.

totally.

[kadakuda]

I was going to pm this to your archaea, but thought that was stupid cause others may be interested. there is a discussion goign on at cacti guide. so far not a lot of info there (yet), but the links they posted sure are a great source of info.

http://www.cactiguid...a48c703203c818b