Bunnings pachanoi really a bridgesii?

[sobriquet]

Encouraged by some of the finds at mere Bunnings stores I decided to venture a little further afield and found a few interesting plants amongst which was this Trichocereus 'pachanoi'.

The spine pattern and length appear unlike a pachanoi description. My limited experiences tells me it is more likely a bridgesii.

The other reason I think so is that it appears to be a seedling and from what I have learned a pachanoi seedling is very unlikely.

[mescalito]

Looks like a peruvian or some sort of pach hybrid???

What makes you think it's a seedling Sobriquet?

[sobriquet]

Looks like a peruvian or some sort of pach hybrid???

What makes you think it's a seedling Sobriquet?

Well I can't know for sure but it has a taper to it and only 5 ribs which makes me think it's young in chrono age.

It could be a rooted pup, but the spines at the base seem too small for that? My experience with these is limited but the Eileen pup I have already has much larger spines so I only have empirical evidence.

Someone else may be able to make a more definitive call on it or at least know a way of telling for sure.

[occidentalis]

Looks peruvianus/macrogonus or similar to me. Sobriquet, when you rehome it to a larger pot, you may be able to tell if it's a seedling or cutting by looking at the way the roots have grown. My bet is that it is a seedling based on the change in spination toward the top of the plant.

[foolsbreath]

Its not bridgesii, looks like a hybrid with definite pach in it. mesc could be right in pach x peruvianus

[penguin]

i got that exact same one from bunnings last week with the same hedgehog tab except with no 'trich pachanoi' note on it.

[Torsten]

the labelling out of hamiltons is generally accurate (in their own vague way ), but tags often get swapped around in the store, so unless you are byuing from a newly arrived tray you might as well ignore the tags.

[Gunter]

Being one of those who does not believe that pachanoi and peruvianus are different species, but are instead different forms or cultivars of a single morphologically diverse species, I could see that as being pachanoid. It is hard to gauge phenotypes from small specimens but I don't see any bridgesii qualities in it, though I qould include bridgesii in the monophyletic grouping.

I have never seen pachanoid plants grow from pachanoi seed, but I have seen plants that one would easily swear are pachanoi, from Backeberg X SS02 and Backeberg X SS01, and Juuls X SS01 seed. Long spine forms are also produced by such hybrid seed.

[sobriquet]

the labelling out of hamiltons is generally accurate (in their own vague way ), but tags often get swapped around in the store, so unless you are byuing from a newly arrived tray you might as well ignore the tags.

Hi Torsten. The Bunnings wasn't one I go to all the time, but I'm definitely aware of what they usually have and that isn't very much. They had just been restocked and for the first time I saw very large examples of Golden Barrell cactus for $34.98 and large Pilocereus examples for similar prices that I have never before seen.

There was another 'pachanoi' with same label and similar (slightly smaller) size close by.

Also the tags are somewhat difficult to remove as they aren't in the soil but rather mesh in with the side of the pot with some 'catches' to keep the tag in.

I've never seen a Bunnings cacti with 'pachanoi' before. A previous Trichocereus was labelled "Trichocereus spp".

So yes it was a fresh shipment and that's the tag I believe the cactus came with from the original nursery.

[sobriquet]

Being one of those who does not believe that pachanoi and peruvianus are different species, but are instead different forms or cultivars of a single morphologically diverse species, I could see that as being pachanoid. It is hard to gauge phenotypes from small specimens but I don't see any bridgesii qualities in it, though I qould include bridgesii in the monophyletic grouping.

I have never seen pachanoid plants grow from pachanoi seed, but I have seen plants that one would easily swear are pachanoi, from Backeberg X SS02 and Backeberg X SS01, and Juuls X SS01 seed. Long spine forms are also produced by such hybrid seed.

For the benefit of my education could you point out some key features about this specimen that would lead to you judging that you "could see that as being pachanoid"? I'm still largely ignorant to these morphological identifying (or helpful) features.

Would really appreciate the input of those in the know. Thank you in advance.

[M S Smith]

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 "paeudo-Backeberg clone" was Backeberg's Bolivian "T. pachanoi." But excuse me please for such wild speculation.

I'm working on a short essay to better explain my views if someone doesn't run with what I have given up so far.

sobriquet, I wish I could give you some tips on features for differentiation, but it is extremely difficult to do so and much of the way we are talking is taken from years of staring at these plants intently and getting to know them. It's like learning how to tell identical twins apart; mere descriptive features fail.

~Michael~

edit for spelling

Edited October 21, 2006 by M S Smith

[BlackDragon]

Heres a mature version of a very similar pachanoid/hybrid i picked up at Bunnings approx 3-4 years ago, around the same age. It looked very very close to the seedling in question.. Its around 5 feet high now..

Bigger pic

.. sorry havent worked out how to thumbnail things,..

[sobriquet]

At another Bunnings I picked up this little fellow who was also distinguished among the cacti there by having a full label. This time it's a nominal Trichocereus peruvianus. If I had had to guess before knowing, I would have thought this one was more like a pachanoi.

Any comments on this one?

[apothecary]

sobriquet the consensus is that immature specimens often look very little like what they will 3 years later, so speculation about what it 'is', probably won't get you too far.

If you're that curious, the best bet is to get it into a bigger pot and start lovin!

[Bongchitis]

Picked up a couple of these lately, actually scored all of my Trich's bar my seed raised ones from Bunnings or K-mart.......9 in all TBM's, scop's, pach's and unknowns.

The pachanois sure have long spines!!! Any reports on activity of the Hamiltons variety of pach?

[sobriquet]

Picked up a couple of these lately, actually scored all of my Trich's bar my seed raised ones from Bunnings or K-mart.......9 in all TBM's, scop's, pach's and unknowns.

The pachanois sure have long spines!!! Any reports on activity of the Hamiltons variety of pach?

Well except for a TBM I'm almost done with the different Trichocereus I can fit into my space at this time.

Assuming the labels above are accurate I have now in order of appearance:

0. T. spachianus (many many of these that I didn't even know I had till later)

1. T. bridgesii 'Eileen' who is pregnant with pup.

2. T. pachanoi 'Tripi' who is busy putting down roots.

3. T. scopulicola from Bunnings.

4. T. pachanoi again from 'B' as above.

5. T. peruvianus again from B. as above.

It pales in comparison to other collections but is a nice number for me at present. A TBM would be nice at some point.

I have a Cereus peruvianus coming into the collection next week that I plan to use for landscaping + its fruit.

[sobriquet]

sobriquet the consensus is that immature specimens often look very little like what they will 3 years later, so speculation about what it 'is', probably won't get you too far.

If you're that curious, the best bet is to get it into a bigger pot and start lovin!

Just wondering whether the spine colour runs true from juvenile to adult plants?

I now have two T. pachanoi plants from 'B'; one with dark brown/orange spines as pictured above, and the other with lighter green/yellow spines.

Do these features at least remain into adulthood in your experience?

Anyone?

[apothecary]

Spines, much like everything else on the cactus hasa juvenile and mature form, so there will probably at best be a resemblance, but it could look totally different in three years.

[Tripitaka]

Oh yeah! they are all shape shifters!