Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
trucha

How to recognize a macrogonus

Question

I was wondering what features can reliably recognize a macrogonus.

My personal opinion is that if it did not descend from the Berlin Botanical Gardens it can't really be proven to be a macrogonus and that the name and description should be chucked as invalid but that is hardly useful in the real world since so many macrogonuses exist out there that are reliably distinct from the peruvianus sorts.

Some people try to stuff a bunch of clearly peruvianus plants into it (which is clearly wrong since peruvianus branches can grow to around 15 or more feet and those of macrogonus only get to around 6 - sometimes a bit longer if jointed and prostrate)

Awlshaped spines, brown from the start, at least for a short while, seems the only unique thing in the description but this is not reliably true in the real world.

I'd love to hear opinions on how people recognize theirs. Not to find people to disagree with but to try and sort out what makes a macrogonus a macrogonus.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

kt, from your link...

Photos of grafted plants.

These were presented as being grafted on pachanoi but since Backeberg's pachanoi does not look like this we would suggest these are more likely grafted on new growth of the old macrogonus such as is shown above.

We were told by M.S. Smith that these came from Backeberg but we do not know their publication of origin.

If these images are still copyrighted and their inclusion here is found objectionable PLEASE let us know and we will remove them immediately or will offer fair compensation for their use.

As stated elsewhere here at SAB the three grafted plants are illustration #262, #297, and #396 from Backeberg's Cactus Lexicon. 3rd Edition, 1976 (which means you now might want to reconsider their reproduction). I also only said I suspected the three bases to the grafts were T. pachanoi due to the fact that Backeberg in this same text mentions their value in grafting.

I suspect that since you are stating that "Backeberg's pachanoi does not look like this" [the bases to the grafts] you mean that since these don't look like the so-called "Backeberg clone" they can't be the plant Backeberg said was T. pachanoi, which is the grounds for which you claim it is T. macrogonus, a plant which I thought you have repeatedly stated you disqualified as a valid name.

I am very curious to find a photo of T. pachanoi that is verified as coming from a Backeberg publication.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here is a T. pachanoi in Ecuador which shows both spineless and quite spiney sections of growth. I wouldn't say this T. pachanoi is much different than that which Backeberg would have described as coming from Ecuador and which he claims to have introduced. I also wouldn't say it was T. macrogonus or that it was the so-called "Backeberg clone."

http://flickr.com/photos/sara_y_tzunki/2399913015/sizes/l/

Be sure to click "original" for the largest view.

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Rolling back to the subject next morning...

kt, I clicked your link last night, but I just noticed when I enlarged the photos of the grafted plants that you have marked the title of the page as "Trichocereus macrogonus, used as grafting stock." Since you have used this page title and are now not only "suggesting" it as T. macrogonus, but rather declaring it so, do you have any support that that is what it was known as to Backeberg when he included it in his book?

Why do these graft based get disqualified as T. pachanoi when you yourself have made ever effort to show the variability in the species? And again, why would you refer to them as T. macrogonus in light of all concerns you have expressed about the name in the past?

And yet again, where is there a photo of "Backeberg's pachanoi" to show that the so-called "Backeberg clone" is the plant he collected in Ecuador and introduced?

Teotz, seeing that the name T. macrogonus isn't well accepted due to factors outlined elsewhere I would have to say it was either T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus or any intergrade between these two species, species which in fact don't bear enough difference to be called different species. Maybe it could be called T. pacharuvianus.

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Michael

I really do not have time to go back through the thousands of posts here to locate an image you posted that I only saw due to you sending it to me on a CD that lacked a label. That is simply not realistic. I have not seen or read the vast majority of the posts and doubt that time and opportunity will ever exist permitting that.

I've posted either two or three images of Backeberg's very consistent view of pachanoi here already. Please look under the thread How to recognize a pachanoi.

If you can't locate those I can repost them although I think at least one has been posted by me at least twice.

Backeberg's view of pachanoi as shown in Die Cactaceae most likely came from Huancabamba as that was where Backeberg collected pachanoi around or prior to 1931 when he made a comment on it (finding it being called San Pedro there at that date)

Interestingly Backeberg's view of pachanoi is darn consistent with the pachanoi still being used by shamans in Peru.

I think those ARE macrogonus in Backberg's graft pictures. None of his photos of pachanoi look anything like that.

The German macrogonus grafting stock I now have in hand sure does though. Its still being propagated and used for that purpose. I was provided with two cuttings of it that are identical to each other. Interestingly not much of anyone seems to grow this for anything other than grafting purposes from what I was told. Even the source of it sells only seed for Knize's assorted 'neo' macrogonus offerings that all of us find so beautiful (despite it needing a different name).

However you make too much out of a "page title". Its not a declaration of anything its just a page title. You sound agitated.

I would suggest that the Ptolemic view of pachanoi and macrogonus that you are creating needs some questioning. I wish I had more than 5 minutes every couple or few days to spend here to enter into a discussion on that subject but there are too many actually important things that need my time and attention right now.

How that translates in my reality is that we exchange maybe around a couple of posts in a few threads, then when I can get back there are often dozens more in each thread (sometimes entire pages of new posts) that I have not read and often never have adequate time to be able to read. It is one of the things that sucks about this otherwise nice conversational format. Only the people who have abundant enough time to actually read through all of the threads get to hear responses you direct for my consideration. RIght now I am often limited to a post or two per day unless there is incoming PM in which case I may not have time even for making a single post.

Is is possible for you to write up something concise expressing your views?

Or perhaps email me with copies of pertinent replies you've are posting that you think are important enough for me to be aware of or respond to? Otherwise I am going to keep missing much of it.

I made a comment accompanying that image from the Lexicon of Backeberg that should at least limit the trouble I am caused to a request to remove the image. I'll probably leave it up for the time being and see what people think of it. Thanks for letting me know its source.

Or I may re-edit and collage it to bring it into fair-use.

One comment on the name macrogonus being invalid.

This is true due to it having no point of origin outside of a botanical garden.

I also thought this to be true based on what Interlibrary loan provided me with so far as descriptions of it (appallingly bad or wrong at least in parts) This was discovered to be an error on my part when ILLS finally provided me with some pages of Salm-Dyck that two earlier attempts had omitted.

Macrogonus has a description by Salm-Dyck that is equal to or exceeding Br & R's descriptions of pachanoi, cuzcoensis or peruvianus. All of which would also be discarded as invalidly published if not for virtue of being grandfathered in.

The descriptions from Salm-Dyck and Riccobono are both posted online as complete text.

I'll have a translation done before too long and also posted.

One other reason to abandon the name macrogonus is due to a botanical nomenclature code clause stating names should be abandoned if they are surrounded by muddled or confused definitions or assignments. Peruvianus and pachanoi both fall squarely under that rejection criteria but I am not suggesting that occur.

My intention in all of this is to learn what the original macrogonus was and to show how it diverges from what is now most often being called macrogonus. I think I am finally starting to make a little bit of progress in that direction thanks to a lot of help from friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Opps, my bad, I suppose I had seen the Backeberg T. pachanoi that came from Die Cactaceae. I suppose we both suffer from some of the sames problems in having too many photos and lots of material to review and keep straight. Anyhow, I don't see how that tip photo disqualifies more spiney T. pachanoi as being T. pachanoi since there are plenty of T. pachanoi that bear both spinely sections as well as near spineless sections...even on the same limb. Some of the spines on plants that also bear spineless section have spines longer than those in the graft plants you believe are T. macrogonus. And I have little doubt that the plant in Die Cactaceae is like those used in shamanism in the past and presently throughout Ecuador and Peru. My question is really more about whether or not these plants used in shamanism in Ecuador and Peru match the so-called "Backeberg clone," plant which I still question the relation of to the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru.

And no, not agitated, just perplexed at times when you talk about variability within T. pachanoi, including spine length, and then seem to discount a plant as T. pachanoi seemingly based on spine length, and this among plants which you readily state are the same species regardless of spination due to flower characteristics.

Sorry if I sounded agitated, but I'm sure you understand the joy I get from the debate.

~Michael~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

What's everyones thoughts on this plant from Pisac, Peru? A form of T. macrogonus? I'd just say it was T. pachanoi, this regardless of whether it matches the T. pachanoi encountered by Backeberg in either Ecuador's Chan Chan valley or in Huancabamba.

http://flickr.com/photos/slbphotos/sets/72157604573087302/

~Michael~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
That picture is just amazing...

What do y\'all think of this cactus being called a \"Trichocereus macrogonus\"?

http://www.bouncingbearbotanicals.com/tric...nus-pi-244.html

i believe I have some of that... but the mother plant was quite a bit taller than what truca suggests macrogonus will grow, although, the spines are generally shorter thank the peruv that I have

Edited by XipeTotec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm a little perplexed or misunderstanding something Michael.

Its not an issue of spine length but also the overall general appearance, comparisons to the photos of Backeberg that are pachanoi by his titling, the long known use of macrogonus among German grafters since early on and them being a nice match of the old German macrogonus grafting stock I posted images of.

It will be interesting to watch them grow up. I'll bet they will grow to look like some of what Evil Genius has posted pictures of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

According to some descriptions gleaned from this thread,both of these plants should fall under the invalid macrogonus description.They're decidedly different,but let the confusion continue.

KK923 macrogonus sent to me by Knize,seems to fit.

A wild collected plant thats finally started to display a bit of spination.The spines seem to fit,as does the macrogonus(large corners) tag.

Educated speculation?

post-230-1212421625_thumb.jpg

post-230-1212421701_thumb.jpg

post-230-1212421844_thumb.jpg

post-230-1212421625_thumb.jpg

post-230-1212421701_thumb.jpg

post-230-1212421844_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I was not able to stay around long enough to see this open (I certainly did try) but this is the macrogonus at the Huntington.

I think a fair number of images of the plant itself have been posted here by myself and others?

They lost their acquisition data but its number suggests that it was rather early for them.

post-900-1212472318_thumb.jpg

An interesting thing about the material in the Berlin garden and its descendants is that using modern tools it could be linked to a geographic point of origin.

Bridgesii also is based on materials with insufficient information about the initial collections (although unlike macrogonus later workers did try to stay within plants that matched each other rather than having two descriptions) Or at least that's true for any name I've seen linked to it - lageniformis, bridgesii, longispinus All of which should be thought of as being names that are equally as invalid as macrogonus. I am hoping that when I get Schuman's first description of brevispinus I will learn something better was said.

post-900-1212472318_thumb.jpg

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I have recently observed a mature macrogonus from SS seed,which seems to fit the short spine German plant.However macrogonus seed raised plants from Koehres seems to fit the longer spined plants,so I'm not sure that the seed stock is the same for both suppliers as stated ealier in the thread.Only time will tell.

Edited by spunwhirllin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The seed source for both suppliers was Knize.

It should be recalled that Knize offers around a handful of different collections he calls macrogonus (either 6 or 8 my memory is not being cooperative) - at least one of these is from Peru and most are from Bolivia.

SS sells Knize seeds for this name only because there is no other supplier.

The Berlin material has never been a source of commercial seeds. Nor has it ever been produced from seed in horticulture.

Its also worth keeping in mind that within a single lot of seeds from a single fruit you can sometimes have both long and short plants arise that can look like they were never siblings. The same can result for clones that are separated and grown under different soil and environmental conditions.

This is why its almost a waste of time to base much on sterile morphology using features like skin color, spine color, rib numbers and spination.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Then how do we figure out what's what, Mr.Trout? :huh:

:blink: Is there anyway to realibly ID Trichocereus??? AHH!!! :wacko:

Edited by Teotz'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Echinopsis.Macrogona.Boliviana

Echinopsis.Macrogona.Peruviana

That's the way I see it now.

Trichocereus.Bolivianus, RS0004 and ICARO's Peruvianus are too close for me to dispute it any further. There are some blue'r var's and some greener vars but thats about it. The rest are hybrids and so is every plant a hybrid of some sort since they are not self fetile. They are just some hybrid that grew at some spot. There are some hybrids that got a name with a collection code but some weren't that lucky, some got lost and some got mixed up.

The rest is human intervention and hybridisation or whatever was labelled on the pot when you bought it. Eh MS Smith? Hehehe!

Edited by George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

You trying to get at something George? or just throwing my name around to be contentious?

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Patience and a lot field work is going to be required.

Too much is being made out of cultivated material of unclear origin, Knizioids and photographs.

GIGO applies here as well as anywhere.

Neither macrogonus nor peruvianus have ever been adequately described or defined (hence the problems everyone is struggling with) although surprisingly macrogonus has the better descriptions of the two.

That field work started this year in earnest. I have yet to crunch the data on what friends have amassed but the project is in fact underway collecting good photos of wild plants, seeds, living examples being deposited in South American collections and tissue samples for enabling DNA work.

DNA work can in fact link wild populations to the Berlin material if samples are found of a wild population it was derived from.

AND professional interest in performing such work is in fact a reality its just a project on the horizon rather than being on their plate for today.

Its really getting almost funny but I will save comments on that until such a time as I can get some images uploaded.

I wish I had more time to spend on this or visiting here but I simply don't right now. Typically I have only enough time for reading a single thread and making a post but hope that can change by this Autumn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here's a T macrogonus from Huntington botanical..

IMG_6457.jpg

IMG_6459.jpg

And a pup that is grafted to a myrtillo, from same plant I assume.

IMG_0019-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The Bouncing Bear cutting looks more like a German macrogonus than most of what I've seen posted.

Too bad no one is currently out there doing field work trying to track down the assorted macrogonus forms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

some gorgeous plants.

here are a shot of the seeds i sowed from koehres stock. still young, and this one is grafted. more when it grows. but i will say the spines are HUGE (long) relative to its stem size.

Tmacrogonus50.jpg

i am quite curious, why no one here seems to look at seed morphology at all? it is used in many other species, including cacti. why not here?

Trichocereus-macrogonus.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
The Bouncing Bear cutting looks more like a German macrogonus than most of what I've seen posted.

It's an awesome cactus! I got one!

cactus022.jpg

:)

Too bad no one is currently out there doing field work trying to track down the assorted macrogonus forms.

I buy cutting of "macrogonus" all the time in my pursuit for "true blue" peruvianus!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Its also worth keeping in mind that within a single lot of seeds from a single fruit you can sometimes have both long and short plants arise that can look like they were never siblings.

hallelujah , hallelujah, halle---lu---ji-ah!!

the seedlings can, and will vary in appearance, often greatly from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Seed morphology is used for cacti, it is just weak and even kind of stupid.

In my own collection I have many plants that were from the same batch of seeds that so called experts cannot tell are related just by looking at them. ID is a joke.

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

×