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

[M S Smith]

Oh, and now ask yourself, if #3 were to be accepted as the original T. pachanoi, and #1 an imposter, then what plant would you then say #1 looked like?

I'd say T. bridgesii.

~Michael~

[PD.]

Excellent work.

what plant would you then say #1 looked like?

I'd say T. bridgesii.

now now Michael, isnt that what started all this in the first place

Is there any literature/desriptions that you know for the first plant? or is the "psuedo" a complete mystery to you?

[M S Smith]

What, did you miss THIS post?

I'm going to spend more time digging around for the plants from Cochabamba.

Here is the T. riomizquensis, a plant claimed to come from the Rio Mizque in Bolivia, not far from Cochabamba. I have other photos I still need to edit and post.

If your at The Nook then check out this photo of the same plant by pisgah

~Michael~

[PD.]

That looks a hell of alot like this Michael. This is a short spined arm that grew from regular bridge. All the other arms around it had regular bridge qualities as you can see in the background

I will try and find the same plants tomoro and get some more pics.

[PD.]

here is another pic of the same one.

[BlackDragon]

sounds good MS, but where would macrogonus now fit into your equasion, as they clearly lie more toward your #3, #4, and rio?

[M S Smith]

I would say that T. macrogonus, if the following picture is an accurate representative, as I believe it is, would then fall intermediate between the somewhat more cultivated and selected #3 of northern Peru and Ecuador and #4, a more wild ferral form from central Peru. So I suppose T. macrogonus could be considered #3.5.

If the T. riomizquensis is truly a plant from that region (this still needs to be supported), and grows near the Rio Mizque in north central Peru, I think it somewhat of an intermediary between T. bridgesii of northern Bolivia and T. scopulicola of sourthern Bolivia. This is all of course just mere speculation that is seriously in need of support.

And Passive, I think your T. bridgesii photos offer some insight into why I am speculating that the "pseudo-Backeberg clone" (#1 above) is related to the Bolivian Trichocereus more so than the Peruvian.

Anyone have a T. bridgesii x T. scopulicola sitting around?

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Anyone besides me thinking this should be the first thread in the new cactus ID subforum? How about having it "pinned" there? I mean this thread is called "ID help please" and has lots of good info. I would hate to have to keep searching for it every time I thought it could help others.

~Michael~

[BlackDragon]

Ah macro the #3.5 !!

I knew it would fall in there somewhere!!

MS, istn there a possibility that there were more than one backenberg clone/plants originally? I mean he/they wouldnt have surely only collected only one pach like specimin from the area, maybe the specimin that has been "remembered and propagated" by the public and cactiphiles alike as the backenberg clone, ie, the one with minimal spines(your pseudo), It may have been the fact that the psuedo was easier to handle(for grafting) and may have made a more pleasing looking graft stock(although your photo shows the 'real' bacekberg. Could it be a matter of survival of the "neatest" rather than survival of the 'fittest'??

Edited October 26, 2006 by BlackDragon

[M S Smith]

I am not sure if Backeberg was much of a collector at all, at least to send the many plants he reviewed to collections, but I could be wrong as I haven't looked into this much. It is interesting to note that he made no mention of the ethnobotanical use of T. pachanoi when I don’t see how he could have escaped this little detail of a plant he himself mentioned as being greatly cultivated throughout the Andes. I bet he was aware of the use of the plant and simply wanted to maintain propriety by not bringing the hallucinogenic use of the plant forward. If he wasn’t someone who regularly sent these plants to collections then I could suspect that he took special interest in this one due to it indigenous use.

He could have sent many clippings from multiple distinct plants back if he did so at all, but from what I can see the “pseudo-Backeberg clone” isn’t represented in the region and therefore at least was not representative of plant from northern Peru that he would have sent to collections.

I'm not convinved that the "pseudo-Backeberg clone" is from Peru at all, and Backeberg indicated that the plant advantageous for grafting was the one from Ecuador for which he provided the description in Cactus Lexicon.

Regarding T. riomizquensis, in the map below is Cochabamba in relation to Mizque. Cochabamba is a department and Mizque is a province. The Rio Mizque actually appears to be located in Campero province more than in Mizque.

The first map is of Bolivia and its provinces and the second is of Dept. Cochabamba. T. bridgesii is from La Paz (La Paz city being just east of Lake Titicaca) and T. scopulicola is from Dept. Tarija in the far south.

~Michael~

[Gunter]

Anybody got pics of Trichocereus crassicostatus? Its a bolivian type some (Ritter?) thought kin to scop but with long spines.

[M S Smith]

Here's a couple links of plants in Peru well worth repeating for those who haven't seen them. Certainly not of my "pseudo-Backeberg" sort.

http://www.evenico.net/mambo/index.php?set...dcdcfabd2b85a9a

http://www.xs4all.nl/~knehnav/sanpedro/San_Pedro.html

This site considers Trichocereus crassicostatus a synonym of T. pachanoi. I'd also like to know more about this name and plant.

~Michael~

[AndyAmine.]

I was jst going through some of the images on my laptop and found the below picture.

With all the talk in this thread I thought it would be a good addition. sorry if its been posted before.

(Please notice that the sticker up the top says its T.Pachanoi but the handwriting down the bottom saw T.Peruvianus, maybe this is where some confusion came from?)

The Britton and Rose T.Pachanoi/T.Peruvianus

Edited October 29, 2006 by AndyAmine.

[M S Smith]

Without a doubt the label at the very bottom is the original, the one above it is a re-archiving of the sample in 1976, and then the one of the top was a 1987 re-archiving under Friedrich and Rowley's view. These latter two considered the T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus the same plant, something which is probably right in regards to the flowers, and therefore correct within the current botanical system.

This of course doesn't serve us best from a collectors point of view. I would rather see T. peruvianus standing alone (as E.F. Anderson has kept it - this though he probably never studied the genus) or at least with the name T. pachanoi ssp. peruviana. Since the description and name of T. pachanoi came before T. peruvianus the former takes precedence in the name game.

~Michael~

Edited October 29, 2006 by M S Smith

[M S Smith]

Here is Backeberg's photo of T. pachanoi from Die Cactaceae. I'm hoping to find information about the plant he found in Bolivia that he considered T. pachanoi.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Just an additional note...

In discussing the T. pachanoi "Kimnach" with K. Trout he agreed that it wasn't collected in Bolivia as the original Huntington tag indicated, but that it was from Peru. This was determined by the indication that the plant came from "along the Cajamarca to Namora road." Though there is a Cajamarca in Bolivia the comment that is was associated with Namora clearly points towards its origins in Peru.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

One last thing, here is a plant identified as T. pachanoi by the French C&S Society AIAPS. Notice its incredible similarity to T. bridgesii and the plant commonly refered to as the "Backeberg clone" but which I have been calling the "pseudo-Backeberg."

~Michael~

[PD.]

Here is Backeberg's photo of T. pachanoi from Die Cactaceae. I'm hoping to find information about the plant he found in Bolivia that he considered T. pachanoi.

~Michael~

That plant in the picture looks VERY similar to Wandjinas "big blue" from bondi.

[teonanacatl]

ones like wandjina's , in my experience, revert back to the normal looking backeberg clone when you grow them.

Michael pic #4 doesnt work.

Talking to one of the genetisists at uni he said sequencing the genome wasnt hard and could be done very quickly and easily in a practical sense. Perhaps finding a geneticist looking for a project and providing them the material would be the best way. This would at least give the genetic stuff we dont have, and could be used along with other things to work shit out

Edited November 13, 2006 by teonanacatl

[M S Smith]

Passive, I see what you mean, but the one in your photo isn't a mature plant while the one in the Backeberg photo is. I think teonanacatl is right, there is a good possibility your's would with maturity look more like the plant I have referred to as the "pseudo-Backeberg" throughout this thread (see post #26, photo #1 above).

teonanacatl, photo #4 seems to be working, at least for me. And if you are up for getting gene work done I'd love to see a workup on the "short spined T. peruvianus" sort of plant (I regard this as more along the lines of a properly ID'ed T. pachanoi from Ecuador and Peru), a "pseudo-Backeberg" as pictured above in post #26 (photo #1), and a standard T. bridgesii. That would make me happy. Of course someone would have to put the results in layman terms for me.

And thanks to whoever pinned this thread, I think it worth not letting slip away regardless of disagreements.

~Michael~

[teonanacatl]

Sorry Mike molecular biology drives me mad. If you were to ask at the nook im sure there would be a geneticist there willing to help.

#4 still not working, can everyone else see it? I pinned the thread MS, figured it would be a nice thing to have. After exams Id like to go find all your nicely names threads and sticky them.

[occidentalis]

Sorry Mike molecular biology drives me mad. If you were to ask at the nook im sure there would be a geneticist there willing to help.

Sequencing a genome is still a big job. It can be done fast, or it can be done cheap, but not both. I doubt anyone would be able to come up with the funds to sequence a cactus' genome.

However if you could identify a few markers which might be useful for molecular taxonomy and develop or find primers to use with them you could probably do some fairly good taxonomy work much more cheaply than sequencing the entire genome.

#4 still not working, can everyone else see it?

not working for me either.

[Pisgah]

A thread like this really does help a person differentiate types of cacti. Many of the things I have found salient through the many species arguments through the years have crystalyzed quite nicely in this thread.

Passive Daemon's bridgesii pup that looks spot on for a "backeberg clone" is a rather compelling piece in this puzzle.

my Kimnach

my Sacred Succulents T. riomisquensis

my Torres Torres

(What stoner dropped this cutting in Chile and screwed up the distribution map?!?)

my Davis bridgesii

(What makes this a bridgesii? Here is where the switch to genus "Echinopsis" may prove useful for sacred cactus ID; T. Bridgesii = E. lageniformis. This cutting does not look "lageniformis.")

Good thread...

[M S Smith]

Pisgah, I pretty much think the Kimnach is a typical T. pachanoi that takes on more spines in cultivation and outside its habitat, but you will also see in nature that these plants will have spines at the base and pretty much none at the top.

If the T. riomizquensis is really from the Rio Mizque in Bolivia, and I can locate stands of the plant in the region then I would venture to guess that the plant everyone calls the "Backeberg clone," but which I call the "pseudo-Backeberg clone," is in fact not the plant Backeberg introduced and is quite possibly closer in relation to T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola than to the true T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru. The following plants are from Ecuador and Peru. I have yet to find one plant in Ecuador or Peru that matches nicely to my "pseudo-Backeberg."

The Torres & Torres seems to just be a typical T. pachanoi of the Ecuador and Peru sorts that was transplanted.

The Wade Davis T. bridgesii is an anomoly, and I even wonder if it is a natural plant in Bolivia at all. I would really love to know were it was collected (wild or in a market?).

The first three photos below are from Ecuador, the fourth and fifth photos are plants in Chile, the sixth and seventh are from Peru, and the last is the same Ecuadorian plant as in the first photo.

~Michael~

Edited December 3, 2006 by M S Smith

[M S Smith]

(Don't miss post #50 at the end of the last page.)

Here's a couple shots again of the oh-so-common "T. pachanoi" that is regularly referred to as the "Backeberg clone" to compare to the plants above. Like I said before, I have yet to locate this plant anywhere in South America, cultivated or otherwise. The closest match seems to be the T. riomizquensis, which itself hasn't been proven to be from the Rio Mizque. More work to be done I think.

~Michael~

edit for spelling

Edited December 4, 2006 by M S Smith