Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
-YT-

Some Sort of Peruvanoid

Question

Thought i would post a few photos of my large What i believe to be Peruvanoid mother plant and pups in varies stages to see if i can get any closer to its Identity.

med_gallery_704_3_546148.jpg

Heres a shot from a few months back before i removed the pups

med_gallery_704_3_551859.jpg

Another shot

med_gallery_704_3_143505.jpg

Three small pups coming from a midsection taken 5months ago

med_gallery_704_3_408126.jpg

Shot of the same three pups (above), taken today

med_gallery_704_3_119023.jpg

Shot taken today of small pup pushing its way in the wide world :wub:

med_gallery_704_3_21006.jpg

Two more pups a bit more along

med_gallery_704_3_391758.jpg

Repotted Pup - was taken of the main mother plant the 1st pic

med_gallery_704_3_814298.jpg

Tip Cut i took when i first got the motherplant sometime ago

med_gallery_704_3_647692.jpg

The Tip cut sitting next to a Short Spine Peruvians (right)

Well hope you enjoy the pics, Any Ideas??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Haha I was waiting for those spines to show themselves, I reckon in full sun it could develop into quite a beasty. How much growth has it been putting on yearly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Its been putting on around 20cms yearly could possibly boost that to a foot in a sunnier position. I have been thinking about that lately actually Strangebrew, think i shall move a few of the pups into full sun positions and see how beasty they can get :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Beautiful plant to say the least. But I am not sure that with more sun it would develope longer spines. I have seen plenty of these sorts of plants in personal collections that came from extremely thick and nearly spineless plants when grown in Peru.

Notice in the 5th photo in particular that it is showing the thickness of strong lighting when originally grown, but that these section apparently lack the regularity of long thick spines. In fact it is the newer and thinner growth that appears to be showing a greater spine output. Certainly some plants tend to develope greater spination with greater lighting, but this isn't always the case. In fact, as your plant shows, you can get different spine lengths on different cuts of the plant even when grown under quite identical environments.

This sort of plant might quite generally be called T. macrogonus, but I've tended to disregard that classification all-together more and more as my insight into these plants continues to develope. I would likely call it a T. pachanoi, the same thing I now regard the plants that have been generally called "short spined T. peruvianus" (though the true "short spined T. peruvianus" is a quite distict clone that bears some difference from your own - below is the original SS T. peruvianus).

Just a note too...the "limb" forming in the 5th photo looks more like a flower bud, but these can start as flowers and "revert" to limbs, leaving a very interesting limb base even though the column eventually takes on the standard rib count.

~Michael~

post-19-1163301688_thumb.jpg

post-19-1163301688_thumb.jpg

post-19-1163301688_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think all the spines on the original plant were cut off.

Starting to ignore the previous nomenclature is really heading off into the wild blue yonder Michael, bon voyage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
I think all the spines on the original plant were cut off.

Starting to ignore the previous nomenclature is really heading off into the wild blue yonder Michael, bon voyage.

Young tripper, were they cut off?

sb, I'm not sure exactly how to interprete what you mean about the nomenclature. I have an idea, but don't want to jump too quick you know.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thats interesting what you say about the SS peruvianus M.S! I will have to get some photos up for you to critique if u could. I have 3 different so called short spined peruvianus from 3 different sources, all slightly different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
sb, I'm not sure exactly how to interprete what you mean about the nomenclature. I have an idea, but don't want to jump too quick you know.

Shouldn't start dropping big words should I. :blush: Ignoring or disreguarding established "species" descriptions then. I have interpreted what you just wrote to mean you are becoming a lumper. If you want to argue that certain plants might actually be part of a 'pachanoid' group or family, that's one thing but calling a macrogonus 'pachanoi' when there are obvious growth differences is another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yeah MS all the spines were cut off when i first bought the mother plant, pity because it would have be quite a funky site. Im not really too sure what it is Marco/Peruvianoid regardless tis an amazing plant. So variable as MS was stating even within the same pups all taken at the same time and all with the same growing conditions.

Edited by Young Tripper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Shouldn't start dropping big words should I. :blush: Ignoring or disreguarding established "species" descriptions then. I have interpreted what you just wrote to mean you are becoming a lumper. If you want to argue that certain plants might actually be part of a 'pachanoid' group or family, that's one thing but calling a macrogonus 'pachanoi' when there are obvious growth differences is another.

There apparently is nothing at all that actually supports the so-called "Backeberg clone" we all know and love as being the plant descriped by either Britton & Rose or Backeberg as T. pachanoi; the photo of T. pachanoi in Die Cactaceae supports this. And there is nothing at all in the literature that definitively establishes any particular plant as being T. macrogonus as it was originally described from a plant in a European collection whose origins were unknown. And if you start to look at what is likely the real T. pachanoi (not the so-called "Backeberg Clone," but rather what a lot call "short spined T. peruvianus") and compare this plant to the plants that are simply deemed as T. macrogonus you certainly see a bit of variableness in the "lines and spines" of the plants, but these are not the determining factors in whether or not they are the same species or not, rather the floral characteristics are, and there are many, including, K. Trout (whom I continue correspondence on these matter with) who would agree that we are talking about one variable species.

I suppose is all I am really becoming is more of a clumper rather than a splitter while at the same time removing certain plants from certain clumps (groupings) to have them placed in other clumps (groups). This is what I did with the old T. peruvianus KK242 by suggesting it belongs among T. cuzcoensis sorts of plants, and what I am suggesting with the so-called "Backeberg clone" as being more aligned to Bolivian species. But in regards to many north and central Peru T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus I am in fact joining others before me in regarding them as variable growth forms of a heavily cultivated single species, T. pachanoi, a name which has precedence over T. peruvianus. This latter point became much clearer to me when I was able to argue that the former two plants, the KK242 and "Backeberg clone" weren't in fact T. peruvianus and T. pachanoi respectively. Once these two were removed from consideration then the similarity of the T. pachanoi from north and central Peru and the "T. peruvianus" from the Matucana region became glaringly apparent. As for the plant commonly referred to as T. macrogonus, well it's just another physical representation of the continuum.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

strangebrew, let me say that I clearly understand how I can frustrate people at times, but this is all my thinking out loud. Even if I didn't do it out loud and came back when I thought it all together I don't think anyone would view my positions any differently. Either they like them or they don't; think they are insightful or just plain off the map. I simply like to challenge the prevalent understanding and see if it can be supported by what information and data is available. If it can't be supported I make an attempt to make sense from another perspective. At least I make a good argument that at least is better than simple acceptance without an adequate defense and justification, something that seems common. I also understand that I have been in fact one that has propagated sometimes inaccurate information, but I do what I can and present my positions in public for all to see, judge, and debate. I hope at least that is valued regardless of the acceptance of my idea.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I mean after reading so much about the Trichocerei, oops Echinopsis' I've realised that Michael has basically come to the conclusion that cultivation of these cacti has led to many forms of the same basic thing.

Akin to there being only one species of dog but many different forms ranging from the Chihuahawa to the Pit Bull Terrier.

Or closer to the plant kingdom, the many forms of Brassica variously as cabbage, Brussel sprouts, cauliflower, brocolli which are all actually phenotypical manifestations of the very same species.

To the naive observer each of these forms may look different with different forms and growth but nevertheless they are the same.

I cast my vote with the Michael and am firmly in the lumper camp. I believe all of these pachanoi / peruvianus forms are the same essential cactus species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Lumper too.

But I'm a skeptical lumper.

Most of these ones get lumped into 'Trichocereus sp.' for me.

Shot taken today of small pup pushing its way in the wide world

Thats an awesome specimen dude, the new growth looks like a lump of green glowing energy :wub:

Lump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Beautiful mother plant YT.

Looks like it has spawned many generations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Or closer to the plant kingdom, the many forms of Brassica variously as cabbage, Brussel sprouts, cauliflower, brocolli which are all actually phenotypical manifestations of the very same species.

We do have different names for these different manifestations though. Whether pachanoids are all the same species or not I'm not in a position to say, no one here is but it wouldn't be satisifying for me to call the whole motley bunch 'pachanoi'.

The current species classifications are used around the world by Botanic Gardens, knowlegable cactophiles and seed sellers and such and I don't think anyone on these forums has the scientific credibility to start disregarding these just yet. Michael may be in a position to ask valid questions about them but the trouble is when total amateurs(us) start thinking of these theories as fact. If these classifications really do stand on such shaky ground isn't there anywhere such findings and arguments can be published and peer reviewed by people a lot better qualified than us to start to change them?

YT,

look at the macrogonus photos on Erowid, they're very close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Michael may be in a position to ask valid questions about them but the trouble is when total amateurs(us) start thinking of these theories as fact.

That's all I'm attempting to do strangebrew, ask valid questions. I certainly in no way am presenting my ideas as "facts." Nor am I making efforts to present myself as anything other than an amateur, something I clearly understand I am.

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If Michael isn't a Trichocereus pro, then who are these pros, where are they and what are they doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
If Michael isn't a Trichocereus pro, then who are these pros, where are they and what are they doing?

I have to admit faslimy just because "The current species classifications are used around the world by Botanic Gardens, knowlegable cactophiles and seed sellers" doesn't make the classifications necessarily correct as the acceptance of one position by a majority doesn't necessarily make it correct. The fact is that in many cases both Trout and myself have taken more time to analyse the subject (Trichocereus in particular) more than many, even more so that those who have brought the names of these plants into existence (i.e. Britton & Rose, Backeberg, and Anderson, all of whose works are designed to covers large numbers of plants but without specificity). Trout and I are maintaining contact about some of my recent views and though we disagree on a number of point because of our particular perspectives we both can state clearly that we become more confused about the classifications the more we actually learn about these plants. Clearly though the efforts we take at attempting to understand them, and the sharing of our views, will only strengthen everyones understanding, even if that means that alternative views to the majority are shot down. My own views are actually put forward to be challenged, and because I do that for mine I consent to the fact that others' views should also be challenged if new perspectives can be taken that are layed out on rational grounds. Trout mentions "grex" and I am in line with him on this. Though we may not be students in the field (though Trout clearly has better access to viewing more plants than I) we are contributing to the discussion and will leave behind ideas that can be better explored in the future.

I am honest in my evaluations; this though they may be proven inaccurate in time. My intent is not to mislead, but to share my thoughts and challenge others to evaluate them as they see fit.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The whole situation is one I find frustrating - there's a large group of huge plants covering a huge part of the world that no one seems to have much idea about. Why? Would there be any other situation like that in the world?

Are there no botanists in these South American countries who have ever taken an interest?

Doesn't America have a grant system? If Trout was Australian he'd have been to South America & back, probably numereous times and had the whole thing sorted by now ....maybe. :wink:

As far as the plant we all know and love goes, well you don't have to try too hard to persuade me there's something wrong with the description there Michael. Anyone who has ever smelt it's flower would be hard pressed to describe it as "very fragrant". :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

sb, I figured as much about the flower of the so-called "Backeberg clone" not matching Britton & Roses descriptions of T. pachanoi as "very fragrant" and admittedly these sorts of comments show my own limitations in being nothing but a book nerd over field learned.

I am not in a region prone to providing flowers on my columnar Echinopsis, and am restricted from travel due to the daily grind of having to support self, family, and hearth. I know my limitations, but even so I still am able to make contributions to the discussion. Maybe this says a lot about how little these plants receive serious study.

Just wait till I win a few million dollars. I can assure you, you would find at least a good start on a new revision of the columnar Echinopsis once known as Trichocereus. For the time being though I am stuck were I am and simply try to do the best that I can...that's all one can do.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

ps, thank God I don't talk like that in person. I feel like I should be drinking tea or something with my pinky finger stuck in the air (with all due deference to you who actually do drink tea, or those who like their pinkies out). Anyhow, here's me below as a South Park character.

~Michael~

post-19-1163765188_thumb.jpg

post-19-1163765188_thumb.jpg

post-19-1163765188_thumb.jpg

Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm more practical. For me taxonomy is a means to an end and the reason why people crave consistency in this matter is that the taxonomy is a sort of lingua franca amongst people who are interested in the things in question.

And I think that in this respect all of the pachanoi and peruvianus could essentially stand in the place of the other as far as a description goes. Moreover they both contain similar to identical ethnobotanical profiles in terms of use and alkaloid content. In that sense they are interchangeable in the real world.

Therefore I think that the attempt at nuancing in this issue is next to meaningless anyhow. Can anyone really give one significant difference between the two ie. pachanoi and peruvianus that cannot be found due just to variability in just one of those alleged species alone.

Perhaps we can create a new name that folds the two in...

Echinopsis ofkapap (ie. once formerly known as pachanoi and peruvianus).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

MS, all I've been really trying to say badly is from my limited perspective even though

And there is nothing at all in the literature that definitively establishes any particular plant as being T. macrogonus as it was originally described from a plant in a European collection whose origins were unknown.

Does that neccessarily mean we should discount plants that match the description significantly, both in prostrate growth habit and flower size?

The fragrance issue is intriging because there are Trichocereus that could be described as fragrant, :blink: admittedly it's only been one so far IME. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm addicted to the smell of trich flowers, everyone i've come across had the same distinct fragrance. are you saying some don't?

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  

×