Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
PD.

Got any bigger?

Recommended Posts

I found these pics on another forum and i thought i better share.

post-1464-1144806391_thumb.jpgpost-1464-1144806461_thumb.jpgpost-1464-1144806272_thumb.jpg.

Yes, that is a pachanoi.

lophophora_williamsii_v_caespitosa_MASSIVE.jpg

SHCactus01super_pedro.jpg

SHCactus03super_pedro_2.jpg

lophophora_williamsii_v_caespitosa_MASSIVE.jpg

SHCactus01super_pedro.jpg

SHCactus03super_pedro_2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice. I don´t think these come from an "undergound collection". A very big Loph, i´m not sure if i´ve read the date on the label right but it looks very old though. Don´t you think the trichocereus might probably also be a Trichocereus Scop.? I hope mine will get that big too someday :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

small, compared to the pedros i've seen in south america, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a Backeberg pachanoi if I recall correctly, I have seen that picture before, it is a nice example of good growth in part sun. The light in the Andes is some of the best on earth for growing plants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-1464-1144890476_thumb.jpg

Apparently the Trich. was properly identified as a Pachanoi. There was alot of disscusion on the forum about wether or not it was a pachanoi, so a piece was sent of and id'd.

The cactus was grown in L.A. California.

SHCactus02giant_pedro_3.jpg

SHCactus02giant_pedro_3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post-1464-1144890476_thumb.jpg

Apparently the Trich. was properly identified as a Pachanoi. There was alot of disscusion on the forum about wether or not it was a pachanoi, so a piece was sent of and id'd.

The cactus was grown in L.A. California.

Who did the ID and what criteria did they use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who did the ID and what criteria did they use?

Sorry but i have no idea about that Archaea, but im sure there are more than a few people living in the good ol US of A competent enough to id a trichocereus pachanoi. Personally, I didnt think it looked like a pachanoi at first glance, but then again i dont know a hell of alot(yet).

It is an awsome cactus regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im sure there are more than a few people living in the good ol US of A competent enough to id a trichocereus pachanoi.

I have serious doubts about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember these pics from a certain other website.. Does anyone else think those spines (or lack thereof) on that are way too small to be a Pachanoi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a Backeberg clone grown in part sun to me, it is what people call T pachanoi in the States, but I don't think it is consistant with T pachanoi as described and named by its original authors. I think the plant MSSmith calls a short spine or small spine peruvianus is much closer to pachanoi than the Backeberg clone.

I wonder what the spines would look like if it was in full sun.

Edited by Archaea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what M_S_Smith had to say about this cactus:

Wow!

T. pachanoi, no boubt whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't use the original description, to the best of my knowledge he just uses a single clone(Backeberg) to define the species T pachanoi, that is very problematic. That is like using a single bridgesioid like lance or SS02 and saying that it is the real T bridgesii, and that bridgesioid plants that don't match must be some other species.

Mr Smith does have one of the better collections in the US... but I fail to understand many of his assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He doesn't use the original description, to the best of my knowledge he just uses a single clone(Backeberg) to define the species T pachanoi, that is very problematic. That is like using a single bridgesioid like lance or SS02 and saying that it is the real T bridgesii, and that bridgesioid plants that don't match must be some other species.

I wouldnt call that problematic Archaea, i would call that ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh Archaea always objective, does anyone share your views??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm, it's more than 20years since i saw pedros in the wild, however they didn't look like this cacti.

i think to remeber them with far less branching, however this cacti might have been pruned back lots of times... but again i've seen prunned pedros aswell in sa, and they looked different.

my point is maybe one additional thing to id pedros could be there overall mature appereance.

pedros have a main trunk which might get as wide as 50cm, from there on all pups and branches have a different thickness which goes hand in hand with ther age, the older the fatter.

this photo showes a midget because the specimen is very short, yet again something i never observed in the wild. hmm, wished i had my photos from south america....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only seen one pachanoi shrub locally that was of similar size but taller, it didn't display such dense branching.

The only thing that seems a little bit odd to me is the arched branching which pachanoi isn't generally known for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh Archaea always objective, does anyone share your views??????
I believe that BPC founding member Rob Montgomery, and K Trout have similar views. I would not say that people like that share my opinion so much as I do theirs.

Some of the people with knowledge upon this topic and or field experience have very similar views to myself. The online consensus is not the same, but that makes sense given certain aspects.

Maybe I should give some better examples of what I am talking about, keep in mind I have had several botany and taxonomy classes over the years. I have even given Trichocereus bridgesii to my Vascular Plant Taxonomy teacher, a plant taxonomist, and talked for a couple of hours about the topic.

Here is a plant I think fits the original description of T pachanoi B&R.

post-1018-1144947574_thumb.jpg

Smith would say it is a short spined peruvianus, at one point I recall him saying he thought it was a relative of the macrogonus type peruvianoids.

And here is a Backeberg pachanoi:

post-1018-1144947708_thumb.jpg

I think it is likely T pachanoi, but it is not wise to define T pachanoi by it and that is what happens frequently in the States and online. As someone who like and owns many cacti, I'd expect a species to cover a range, not a single form.

Some people who have traveled the Andes say that T pachanoi and T peruvianus are not only the same species, but they have seen every possible intermediate form between them. They think of them as divergent morphological peaks in a single species.

Here are macrogonus allied plants Trichocereus Burbank and SS01:

post-1018-1144947948_thumb.jpg post-1018-1144948429_thumb.jpg

Compare it to the first photo. Mike has suggested that what he calls "short spine peruvianus" is the same as Mesa Gardens "small spine peruvianus" and that they are closely related to macrognus types. Why don't you make a visual comparison? When I do it I have a hard time seeing that relation Mike claims.

If you try to buy and grow seed of T pachanoi, you often get plants like this:

post-1018-1144948083_thumb.jpg post-1018-1144948146_thumb.jpg

Those two plants came from two different seed vendors, and was sold as T pachanoi. Did they get it wrong or right? The real answer is, without more information we can never know.

Here are some plants I think of when I think of T pachanoi:

post-1018-1144948244_thumb.jpg post-1018-1144948292_thumb.jpg post-1018-1144948321_thumb.jpg

They are from left to right: Torres, Small Spine Huancabmaba, and Kimnach.

Honestly I don't think I are who agrees with me, to me at least, the plants speak for themselves.

post-1018-1144947574_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144947708_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144947948_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948083_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948146_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948244_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948292_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948321_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948429_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144947574_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144947708_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144947948_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948083_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948146_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948244_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948292_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948321_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1144948429_thumb.jpg

Edited by Archaea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archaea have you ever tried pollinating the Backeburg with one of your B&R Pachanois? Since the "standard" pachanoi's cannot be self pollinated, Id be interested to see if it's possible to cross those. BTW that first pachanoi picture you have is beautiful :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I get a chance to, yes I will. I'd like to try scop, Kimnach and Torres against the Huancabamba pachanoid.

One thing that is related to the issue of a lack of T pachanoi diversity in the States is the lack of seeds. That is almost the crux of the matter, so far as I am aware the closest thing to a Backeberg that has been produced from seed involving a Backeberg is Backeberg X scop, I have only seen some very beautiful photographs of this cross.

I would expect a range of traits for pachanoids, peruvianoids and bridgesioids. If a plant has smaller than normal spines or longer, it does not disqualify identity. It seems that single clones can have diverse appearance with a range of conditions and age, likewise in a single population of a single species from seed, a range of traits is typical to some degree.

Honestly I could see the Backeberg as being T pachanoi, just not the type specimen T pachanoi. I think the solution to what I would view as a problematic consensus based on limited availability of various pachanoids and other forms is widespread trading of diverse forms!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archaea

i sympathise with your assertions on the whole holotype issue but just not your examples

thos two pachs you show. My clones numbering well over 100 show a divergence in form encompassing both examples.

I have no idea why or how but the same clone can morph between both forms

at fisrt i was certain it must be another type that got mixed in but now i have observed them over time i can say they change at will between morphologies

I do however have at least 3 strains i believe plus promising seedlings

i know my standard pachanoid is as described above

then there is the chanchan valley pachanoid. i have only 1 so i am getting to know it but it looks very promising as its nothing like the peruvian types, its like regular pachanoi but not as well.

the others from brisbane (Gomaos) and from SAB (Omar) i think are the same clone or very close as they flower about the same times and with ease whereas the standard one i got from WA never flowers

the only point of difference is tha the Gomaos collection seems far less phased by black rot than the omar which im going to cull cos its just such a pain in the arse to keep clean.

this gom/omar clone looks to me identical to backberg

i did X poll between gom and omar both ways but got nothing

but then i X polled with other pollen types which proved fertile on other X's and still got nothing

To date i have been unable to make any X stick on Gomaos or omar

i have tried Scop, Pachanoi, KK242, echinopsis hybrids, bridgesii, spachianoids, other unknowns

They do however contribute viable pollen to Echinopsis hybridX and T scop X

with those seedlings i suspect mislabelling at the collection end

i dont trust anything that gets those fat arse central spines like that

im so Fkn sick of KK242s :uzi: clogging up my seed trays

yeah i mean they are nice cacti but so superficially uniform predictable and frequent

my pachanoi seedlings look nothing like that

pics later

the three clones you show

id only call one pachanoi - Small Spine Huancabmaba

the other 2 id say are hybrids

they look to me EXACTLY what id expect when Ecuadorian pachanoid genes from the north meets the Central peruvian Cluster F...amily - icaros, santaensis, pallarensis, macrogonus - whatever subgroups you want to delineate it into i see it as a cluster discrete from the cluster backeberg is part of

so yeah yeah backeberg is not the be all end all of pachanoi definitely

i think a big problem is too much messy peruvian seed and plants and not enough material from pachanoi home country in circulation

Anyone holidaying in Ecuador anytime soon?

Some people who have traveled the Andes say that T pachanoi and T peruvianus are not only the same species, but they have seen every possible intermediate form between them. They think of them as divergent morphological peaks in a single species.

i can see that. and id expect it too given human movemnets and the easy outcrossing

but its so contentious a statemnet to make given we are having difficulty agreeing what constitutes pachanoi.

and then you speak of Peruvianus well...thats even MORE troublesome

the comparison now has no standard refernce point.

What i call Peruvianus is a catch all junk basket for Central peruvian species that dont fit the CPCF listing as above. It seems to me like Cereus peruvianus to be such an abused term as to be rendered worthless

after all if KK242 can be paraded for years as peruvianus, and so can the CPCF's and 'short spined perus' and a myriad or other things.

Edited by Rev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i sympathise with your assertions on the whole holotype issue but just not your examples

thos two pachs you show. My clones numbering well over 100 show a divergence in form encompassing both examples.

I have no idea why or how but the same clone can morph between both forms

at fisrt i was certain it must be another type that got mixed in but now i have observed them over time i can say they change at will between morphologies

That is fair. To be honest though they are distinct clones in the pictures I show, but your point is well taken, I think it is damn good input and it makes sense to me.

My ultimate view is that they are all members of a single species complex, with various populations that have different degrees of homogeneity and heterogeneity. I have some plants that look akin to the KK242, but still different. They can have a similar color and look, but side by side only look related to me, also in the same batch (T pachanoi(?)seed) several plants look like macrogonus types.

I have one KK242 cuzcoensis type but another interesting one that was obtained from Knize as a KK242, I grow them, I don't eat them, but the clone has been bioassayed by someone nearly a thousand miles west of my location and found effective. If Knize's labeling system is correct, that means he obtained the cutting at a certain elevation or regional location. I'll include some pictures of this interesting plant, it has short spines but long centrals, it is the same clone as page 304 in KT's San Pedro. (I miss that guys contribution here)

post-1018-1145029618_thumb.jpg post-1018-1145029775_thumb.jpg

And here is a photo of a Backeberg type pedro, the mains stalk has 5 ribs and this makes it more angular when it isn't fully hydrated and plump. It looks akin to scop however it throws pups that look much more typical for a Backeberg like pedro.

post-1018-1145029842_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1145029618_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1145029775_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1145029842_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1145029618_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1145029775_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1145029842_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-11-1145034575_thumb.jpg

Goms clone. looking pretty backbergioid ;)

post-11-1145034641_thumb.jpg

post-11-1145034752_thumb.jpg

my standard in one of its 'other' looking phases. characterised oft by longer spines and the v notches

even then this pic is mild. maybe intermediate between the extremes of changes

on the topic.. i went looking for strangebrews mother lode find but couldnt find it in the archives

gomoctober.jpg

closeup.jpg

pedro.jpg

gomoctober.jpg

closeup.jpg

pedro.jpg

Edited by Rev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post-11-1145034575_thumb.jpgGoms clone. looking pretty backbergioid ;)

It does look very similiar. What is its heritage? I am curious what it's spines and areoles look like in detail.

The other one looks nice, it seems intermediate between the Backberg and B&R descriptions.

Edited by Archaea

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
Sign in to follow this  

×