IDhelp on T.peruv.?

[carlosis1also]

Original post was deleted,I suppose.On first post I mentioned how these have almost bridgesii spines on new growth,then at base have up to ten spines.Long central,with brown to reddish color.Awl like on newer ones,but needle like elsewhere.Thick,thick,thick columns.Tallest is 48".I had them labeled T.peruv.Tarma.Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

[Evil Genius]

Hi carlos, this one looks very much like a Trichocereus Macrogonus. Or maybe some kind of Macrogonus Related hybrid.

Guys, what do you think? bye Eg

[chilli]

So they are all from the same stock? The top photo has a sort of Bridgesii look to me, but I think it is mostly the shape and you say it is very wide, and I guess its from the same plant anyway... the bottom two photos look like some kind of Macrogonus to me also.

Edited August 23, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[carlosis1also]

I'd hoped that would be the conscensus, as I'd recently marked them Macro.After reading what both MSSmith and trucha have been discussing on the topic,plus all the other posts and pics of what others had seen online and in their own collections.No,these three actually are from different sources that I've had a while.One I trimmed out some bottlenecking that had formed.I can show the tip and base of it if needed.The second tip is the rear one and the taller of these two.I guess it's alright to mention that they came from MJB and CactusJohn from BSP.

[Evil Genius]

Hi Carlos, i´m not sure who "MJB and CactusJohn from BSP" are! Can you please help me out? The one on the first pic is very interesting and i´d like to see this plant a little bit more often under diffrent growing conditions! bye Eg

Edited August 23, 2007 by Evil Genius

[carlosis1also]

Sorry EvilGenious,

MJB, http://www.mjb-botanicals.com/ is a sponsor at Botanical Swap Project http://www.botanicalswap.org/forums/index.php and cactusjohn is a memeber there.The third one that I butchered came from about eight rooted cuttings I got from a Living Rocks yahoo groups purchase and the guy said they were from a European seed vendor.These were varied in form.Two proved to be IDed by msssmith as the Ecuadorian/peruvian true T.pach.Lucky buy undoubtedly.That's all I know.

[carlosis1also]

Here's 3rd one I have.Tip first:

Then base.I've yet to see these pup from base.surely the cut will pup now.:

[Ace]

Looks like a good mix of macro, bridge and peru - perhaps a cross of some sort?

[carlosis1also]

Thanks Ace.I'll wager that's a very good possibility.

[trucha]

One common problem we all run into (besides knowing little of anything with any certainty) revolves around the frequent lack of self fertility. Unless a person is getting seeds from a population of seed grown plants it is more likely they have an intermediate than something within a single species or form. This is probably why morphologically these plants are so variable in cutlviation or in the wild. Some friends just returned from Bolivia and Peru and Ecuador with a lot of amazing images. Images to come.

I have to disagree with some of Michael's thoughts on the "true" pachanoi having really long spines. It just does not mesh with what is out there unless selectively picking and choosing based on a Ptolemic approach to data processing or if regarding peruvianus as pachanoi as Ritter did.

In their original description Britton & Rose reported spines of variable length with the longest one up to 2 cm long and showed one a touch longer in the NYBG voucher but nothing close to what one sees in the intermediate materials that caused Ritter to declare synonymity between pachanoi and peruvianus.

Even Br & R commented on the spines in pachanoi sometimes being absent (in the original description). Ostolaza described them as very short or absent in his description of hte species (the only description so far with nice floristic elements included) The spanish chroniclers also described achuma and giganton as a very smooth cactus and mentioned longer spined ones also existed called agua-colla.

Very short spines are common in Ecuador and Peru both, as are plants with longer spines but the burden of proof is on people who want to say the longest spined ones are true pachanoi rather than just intermediates or something more akin to santaensis which has distinctive flowers despite looking like a longer spined pachanoi.

One factor that can be missed is that the short spined plants in easily accessible areas are often wiped out due to overharvesting and these being favored due to greater ease of handling. This is a sad fact that Carlos Ostolaza discussed with me a few years ago when visiting the US. In areas with a lot of shamanic use the short spined plants are simply gone. Its easy to draw too much that is not warranted from photos taken by tourists.

In another post here I referred people to published images. I dislike posting any images without permission from the photographers as its not really ethical (technically it is stealing in the same way reproducing art without permission is) so would rather refer people to them. All of what works I mentioned are easily found and still in print. I did include some images in another post here that I stole from Backeberg and Ritter though that also show their view of typical short spined pachanoi. Hopefully people have seen them as I intend to delete them soon.

I've had friends specifically looking for this feaure in their travels lately. Once I start uploading their images this will become more apparent.

[M S Smith]

"I have to disagree with some of Michael's thoughts on the 'true' pachanoi having really long spines. "

kt, just because I posted images of plants showing long spines in no way means that I think for a plant to be called T. pachanoi it must have long spines. I was simply trying to point out through the pictures in the other thread that in fact T. pachanoi can have long spines and the NYBG deposit supports that. I would think that by now you would see that I am not pigeon-holing any "species" and am aware of the variation within T. pachanoi and other species. Hell, I have even mentioned broad definitions of species "complexes" which within themeselves show a broad range of features.

Certainly you are aware that I have represented many plants as T. pachanoi, even some which have little spine presence at all. Clearly you can see all the other Ecuadorian plants on the disc I sent you which though not having long spines I would still contend are T. pachanoi.

~Michael~