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

[apothecary]

Intruiging as usual Mike, thanks

[M S Smith]

I think the plant I call the "pseudo-Backeberg clone" (that one immediately above) is extremely homogenous because it is of a single clone of likely unknown origins, and that the "true" T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru in many of the other photos are much more variable due to continued interbreeding in natural populations, or at least in populations where many more plants of distinct genetics exist. This of course is what likely produces the variability in spination in particular among the plants of Ecuador and Peru.

I would also die to see what would be produced if you crossed the true T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru with the homogenous clone. Also I would like to see the true T. pachanoi crossed with a T. bridgesii. I have crosses of the homogenous clone with the SS02 and am impressed with its variable spination. Some look identical to T. bridgesii, others like the homogenous clone, and others right in-between.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Alright, now this is cool. Today I was digging around for photos and I came across this one (see below) from one of the fellows in Australia. It is a hybrid T. scopulicola x T. bridgesii. Now, as you may have gathered from earlier comments in this thread, I have been taken by two different plants of Bolivia that look like my so-called "pseudo-Backeberg clone" (regularly regarded as the "Backeberg clone"), these two being the T. riomizquensis and another that I have only seen in a single photo of a plant in Cochabamba, the same general central Bolivia area as T. riomizquensis.

Interestingly enough Cochabamba and the Rio Mizque region of Bolivia are between (though slightly to the east) of La Paz, the home of T. bridgesii, and Tarija, the home of T. scopulicola. In the past I have often thought of T. riomizquensis as possibly an intermediate species between T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola. Of all the plants I have seen so far it is T. riomizquensis that has the closest affinity to the "pseudo-Backeberg clone."

So, if you look at this hybrid below and ask yourself what it most looked like I think few would have any difficulty claiming that it looks like the common T. pachanoi "pseudo-Backeberg" clone. Maybe this can lend more support to the suggestions I've made in the past that the “pseudo-Backeberg” is closer in relationship to T. bridgesii than to the T. pachanoi forms particularly of Ecuador and Peru, many of which can be seen here (if you have membership).

~Michael~

[kakti]

Ah the plot thickens...When is someone going to make a paternity test for cactus?

[strangebrew]

Speaking of intriguing, that is what I have found this sites Echinopsis synonyms to be.

It puts knuthianus as a synonym of cuzcoensis....interesting!

http://www.khc.cz/cacti/echinopsis.html

[faslimy]

That one looks quite young and might turn out to look more like a bridgesii with age.

This one I've posted before, I think it looks quite like the backeberg clone. It is grown from seed, I have 2 others form the batch growing outside which both have even shorter spines and slightly different rib shape (also more green from being outside)

The grower told me it is T pachanoi x scopulicola and I'm pretty sure we don't have the backeberg growing down here. (zee werp?)

[M S Smith]

Faslimy, I think your plant is rather a mix between T. bridgesii and the non "Backeberg clone" T. pachanoi. The so-called "Backeberg clone" may not be present in NZ, but it is present in Australia.

Just a note, having now come to consider the so-called "Backeberg clone" as not being representative of Peruvian and Ecuadorian T. pachanoi I'm leaning towards the "Juul's Giant" as being a clone of particular distinction of the Peru and Ecuador T. pachanoi.

strangebrew, Sacred Succulents sells a T. knuthianus here in the States which is very much in line with the "T. peruvianus KK242 (T. cuzcoensis?)" plant. Here's a photo below.

~Michael~

Edited December 23, 2006 by M S Smith

[M S Smith]

Below is a Trout photo of T. riomizquensis to compare to the so-called "Backeberg clone" in Post #51 above.

Interestingly enough I sent a photo of the "Backeberg clone" to Brian Bates, a cactus_etc member who lives in Sucre, Bolivia, and he wrote back saying that it looks to him "like it could be Trichocereus bridgesii."

~Michael~

Edited December 23, 2006 by M S Smith

[M S Smith]

A new post on the same subject for those who might find themselves interested. Lots of photos so have patience if you are still dial-up.

See the second page for my comments.

http://www.entheogen.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10557

~Michael~

Edited February 3, 2007 by M S Smith

[Rev]

my current idea of pachanoi

is the ecuadorian KK 339 and planst like it also vouchered as being collected in ecaudor

[Rev]

and faslimys plant could well be scop x pach

there is variation very much like that in those progeny

pics soon

[M S Smith]

Rev, do you think that KK339 above is different than the many plants in Ecuador and Peru that I posted in this post?

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

I'd put these two first plants along the lines of the real T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru.

This is a seed grown KK339 allegedly from plants in Ecuador. I think it will eventually look like the plant in the second photo.

This second one is an alleged T. peruvianus KK242 of the sorts that Trout got in that huge box of Knize plants he got some time ago.

This third one is a Mesa Garden T. pachanoi and will likely look more along the lines of T. peruvianus or T. macrogonus in having more spination.

This last photo is of a T. pachanoi in Peru.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Page three here at this link may be well worth a look if you are a member. Lots of interesting photos of plants in habitat throughout the entire thread, but on page three I make some interesting suggestions that you true cactus freaks will likely appreciate, though they might confuse those newer to the subject. If you read through this entire thread and that one you'll probably get what I'm getting at.

~Michael~

[ferret]

bought a cool thing today that hurt my brain again. looks to be 2 seedlings one would presume from the same batch. thought it kind of looks like a 'backeberg' pach with peru spines but then its kind of textured like a scop.

the spination on the little one reminded me of my mates plant here with pup, this one supposedly came from an old otherwise normal looking backe' pach.

[ferret]

heres it with a couple more ive got from the same place in the last month or so that i presume to be brethren

long horn coloured spines, long white spines, medium horn spines

is there bridgesii x peru out there? also ive heard that the backe' pachanoi is hard to breed with, or at least its a poor pollen acceptor.. is that true? if so what has it been known to hybridise with?

Edited June 29, 2007 by ferret

[ferret]

heres one i sourced from Eli

heres one a tad closer to the bridgesii side of things

and a big fat bolivian, white hairs

and what i assumed to be a longer spined scop but has black hairs. wtf is cordobensis?

Edited June 29, 2007 by ferret

[M S Smith]

Here's a cool shot of what really can't be anything but a T. pachanoi. This photo is from Ecuador. Don't be thrown off by the longer spines on seedlings.

That plant you say is "from an old otherwise normal looking backe' pach" isn't from my perspective. Spination and areoles are not the so-called "Backeberg clone" from what I can tell.

I do like that plant you say is on the "bridgesii side of things." Perty. I have a similar plant that came under the name T. pachanoi from "Desert Dans." Not quite T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus and not quite T. bridgesii.

The T. scopulicola's are sweet too. It looks like you have both "forms," the standard extremely small spined form and the longer spined form that looks to be pretty common in Australia. The T. cordobensis name seems to come from a tag that was attached to one of these longer spined T. scopulicola that was passed on to me by NMCR. Since I was throwing around pictures of it under this name many years ago it looks as though when others saw similar plants elsewhere they began applying T. cordobensis to them as well. Cordoba is in northern Argentina (the standard form comes from southern Bolivia) so I've always wondered if plants matching this T. cordobensis/T.scopulicola actually grow in Argentina, but I haven't been able to show that yet.

~Michael~

[apothecary]

That baby is growing on the roof?

[PD.]

bought a cool thing today that hurt my brain again. looks to be 2 seedlings one would presume from the same batch. thought it kind of looks like a 'backeberg' pach with peru spines but then its kind of textured like a scop.

hehe, i just picked one of those lil fellas in melbs ferret, interesting lookin lil fella.

That one ya got from E looks to be super pedro Fez, a big fat long spined scop although some growth of older super pedro can be skinny and even look just like regular pedro.

I reckon there are alot more seed grown tricho hybrids in Australia than the standard strains. I know of one garden that has quiet a few large plants that are hybrids that could be labelled as being pachanoi or peruvi when in actual fact they are neither, just hybrids. I guess ya cant do much about it when the growers themselves only have sketchy details and memories of what was crossed when and where it is now. Of the large hybrids i have seen the owner couldnt tell me what went into the crosses he just knew they were hybrids. Then again, my experience is limited in identification the only really good Tricho reference i have Trouts notes, SP 3rd ed. I havent talked with alot of older growers as im sure alot more ppl here have and i speculate way too much without alot of hard evidence, hehe, just word of mouth.

He also mentioned something about super pedro being a hybrid also but i need to talk to him a bit more about this as it was only a rushed conversation at the end of a visit.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Passive Daemon

[ferret]

That plant you say is "from an old otherwise normal looking backe' pach" isn't from my perspective. Spination and areoles are not the so-called "Backeberg clone" from what I can tell.

i know it doesnt look anything like the normal clone, but i spoke to the guy it came from and he assured me its from the normal pach, he said from time to time it just grows these type of limbs. i was as skeptical as you mike and thought hed just mixed his shit up, but its the growers story and hes sticken to it. i think prier has done some work with the guy, maybe he can shed some light on it... i also think that one had a nute deficiency so ill have to check back on it when its a bit healthier.

its not overly rare for cacti to pup limbs that show differnt phenotypes is it?, monstrose plants do it all the time..

[M S Smith]

I think the spine arrangement, spines, areoles, and areole spacing are all wrong to be the "Backeberg clone." I also think the new growth as represented on that pup is completely off to be the Backeberg clone. That tip is a bit neglected and stunted in growth and so I think it a bit deceptive. But honestly I'm just giving my opinion and really don't think much of what it's called or sold as. You go with what's good for you.

I think that plant looks like this first T. pachanoi and not like the second photo which is of the "Backeberg clone."

T. pachanoi from South Bay:

The so-called "Backeberg clone:

Monstrose growth appears to be a mutation, an abnormality, of the genotype itself that can though be set into motion through environmental factors and apparently can cease due to environment. The monstrose "short spined T. peruvianus" is a good example of this. I don't think it fits the common view of phenotype variability.

The Backeberg clone, being a clone is therefore of a single genotype. I've seen lots of photos of the Backeberg clone, and though I have seen lots of phenotypical variability I have never seen such a degree of variability in the clone that it had ever produced spination as is present on that pup. That would be a first since I got my first Backeberg clone 15 years ago.

~Michael~

[PD.]

I would like to see the true T. pachanoi crossed with a T. bridgesii.

I have some seedlings growing at the moment that were produced thru natural pollination (bees) The only other flowers open at the time were the flowers from the plant i label "yowie". 3 yowie tips were moved next to 2 bridgesii tips as the flowers opened and the mass of bees did the rest.

I know its likely that there could be pollen from another cacti that produced the X but its HIGHLY likely that the pollen was from the yowie flowers, just hafto wait and see now how the lil babies grow. Excellent germination rate but i guess you would expect that from fresh seed.

Yowie btw is what you would call an Ecuadorian pach IMO.

[M S Smith]

Really cool! That certainly is what I would call the Ecuadorian or Peruvian form of T. pachanoi. I do hope that if you spread the seed around you find a way to distinguish this T. pachanoi from the so-called "Backeberg clone."

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Check out this neat little similarity between T. bridgesii and the so-called “Backeberg clone" in comparison to what the more common T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru generally look like.

T. bridgesii:

The so-called “Backeberg clone”:

And now compare the "Backeberg clone" to this T. pachanoi of the Ecuadorian/Peruvian sort:

I got more photos at http://flickr.com/photos/msscacti/

There are a dozen or so newer photos at the main page which I haven't put into the Echinopsis/Trichocereus "set" yet.

~Michael~

Edited January 13, 2008 by M S Smith