Teotzlcoatl Posted January 3, 2008 I was wondering what features can reliably recognize a Trichocereus riomizquensis? From my personal observations I believe the "San Pedro predominant cultivator" represents T. riomizquensis much better than it does T. pachanoi. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1 incognito Posted January 9, 2008 lol the eternal, unending pachanoi id. man u gotta have stamina! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mark80 Posted January 3, 2008 From my personal observations I believe the "San Pedro predominant cultivator" represents T. riomizquensis much better than it does T. pachanoi. What makes you say this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted January 3, 2008 (edited) The "San Pedro predominant cultivator" does not look like what a T. pachanoi really looks like. According to Mr.Smith in this thread- here I make much of my assumptions off of his and other peoples work. And I would like to thank those people who have came before me and collected such a vast amount of knowledge. (Above photo by MMSmith) Look at Mr.Smith's post #9 in the linked thread above- See the "San Pedro predominant cultivator" photo posted. That's the usual clone we see here in the states, and we call it "San Pedro" and assume it is T. pachanoi... As soon as I got my T. riomizquensis from S.S., I looked at it and thought- "That looks like a San Pedro"... So I got to thinking... The "San Pedro predominant cultivator" clone is really T. riomizquensis. Maybe, maybe not.... I'm asking everybody what they think about this. I'll try to post a pic of my T. riomizquensis soon, sorry it's taking so long... Edited January 3, 2008 by Teotz' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mark80 Posted January 3, 2008 yeah, I've seen ms smith's work but i was wondering wat made you say that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted January 3, 2008 (edited) As soon as I got my T. riomizquensis from S.S., I looked at it and thought- "That looks like a San Pedro predominant cultivator"... But, it DOESN'T look like T. pachanoi. So what species is the "predominant cultivator", is the question I'm asking, I suppose. I think the "San Pedro predominant cultivator" and T. riomizquensis may be one in the same, or atleast closely related. Edited January 3, 2008 by Teotz' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 trucha Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) The one question no one has ever actually answered is why that so called predominate cultivar is NOT a pachanoi form. Pachanoi can have spines that are almost not there or be quite long. It can take a host of different forms which is why Ritter merged it with peruvianus. It could be a hybrid based on its vigor and the shape of the podaria on the fruit but there is presently no proof of that. Michael dismissed it for not having black hairs on the ovary but the reality is it does in fact have black hairs on the ovary. At least mine do. They are simply overgrown with lighter wool. Comparing flowers of mine in detail with flowering shots a friend took of Peruvian plants do not reveal any significant differences. I could dismiss about half the bridgesiis as not being bridgesii on far more grounds. ( I do not though) Michael makes a lot out of what he can find in other people's travel photos yet (no offense intended Michael) I would much rather trust the first hand observations of friends with extensive field experience in Ecuador and Peru who claim that the plant Michael rejects as not occurring in those countries is in fact growing there. More details would be appreciated but email would be better for me as I frequently find it hard to locate posts here due to my lengthy absences and lack adequate time to spend the hours here it will take me to catch up. I sure do wish I had enough time. Michael makes lots of good observations but some of his assumptions and conclusions need some adjustment. I recently acquired some old clonally propagated German macrogonus (brought from Germany by hand) and it looks like a better candicate than pachanoi for the stock on Backeberg's graft photos that Michael posts as pachanoi examples. Since macrogonus is long loved as a grafting stock in Germany I would suggest Backeberg's images are grafted on macrogonus not a spiny pachanoi. Please recall Backeberg's pachanoi is very smooth in profile and very small spined. Obviously it would have been well recieved by German grafters for that reason. I wish I had more time right now but the few minutes I've been here today is about all I have to spend due to the overload of life I am dealing with. On riomizquiensis I am almost convinced that Horst at NMCR sold me a typical Western cultivar pachanoi he mislabled riomizquiensis. I gave it to SS several years ago which is where their stock came from. Horst claimed to have grown it from seed obtained from Winter. All I know is that it looks quite different from my other still-tiny riomizquiensis from Horst said to be from the same planting. Look in Ritter's Kakteen in Sudmaerika if you want to see a photo of a bona fide riomizquiensis. I can try to scan and post that image but its insane trying to find time to simply visit here right now. In the past I have made comments to a number of people here about posting this or that. If anything matters let me know via email and I will place it towards the top of my to do list. Otherwise it may well slip through the cracks right now. My apologies for that but there is only 24 hours in a day. Edited January 10, 2008 by trucha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) I've seen T. riomizquensis many places and I'd say it's just as good of a name as T. huancoensis or T. cozcoensis. Shit, we might as well just lump all the main psychoactive Trichocereus cacti into one species... Let's just call them all T. brigdesii, there that's nice and boring. Even if they are pheneotypes (sp.?) it's nice to be able to distinguish them from one another. Perhaps we should refer to them as "pheneotypes" rather than "species". On riomizquiensis I am almost convinced that Horst at NMCR sold me a typical Western cultivar pachanoi he mislabled riomizquiensis. I gave it to SS several years ago which is where their stock came from. Your shitting me? That sucks! O well... It's kinda cool to have a cactus you once had tho... Trucha I thank you for all your help! You seem to be a very smart person! Some of it is a bit over my head tho! I do desperatly want to see (and own) a REAL T. riomizquensis, they seem to be a well accepted species by many different people. Edited January 9, 2008 by Teotz' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 tonic Posted January 9, 2008 Let's just call them all T. brigdesii, there that's nice and boring. Nothing boring about T. bridgesii, they ROCK! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted January 9, 2008 Indeed, Bridgesii rock! They will blow your mind. And I think "blow" is a good term, or perhaps "explode", compared to other trichs. Trucha let me make sure I understand you. Your saying that out of the following species- T. macrogonus, T. peruvianus, T. pachanoi and T. bridgesii only T. pachanoi/peruvianus(as one species) and T. bridgesii really exist? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 trucha Posted January 9, 2008 Before deciding where to draw species lines a definition of what is required for something to be a species is needed. I have not yet met anyone who can give this definition and in the last year I have asked several professional botanists including Myron Kimnach and Jim Bauml. Right now the crucial factor in something being or not being a species is whether David Hunt agrees with you. Its all political but that could form a book to discuss adequately. Its only our human obsession with cataloging and defining that causes the mess not the plants. We can call them whatever we want in horticulture. All that matters is that we know what another person is talking about when using a name. Its not that I am smart, I just like to keep asking questions and keep digging rather than conclude I have reached any level of understanding. To me the meaningful stuff is not what answers my questions but the stuff that makes me find my world view collapse and a host of new questions arising. I'm presently unclear that any of those species exist as separate species. At best they appear to be subspecies or maybe are just divergent forms or perhaps peaks within a hybrid swarm. People would benefit from taking a single clone line and growing it in a set of different soils, different climates, different watering schedules and differnt amounts of sun. They will find plants result from this that a stranger might insist were separate species. Bridgesii is not valid for preservation as Echinopsis bridgesii was name earlier in the same paper as Trichocereus bridgesii. That is why lageniformis was chosen despite its lack of a anything approaching a good description. I'll keep calling them bridgesii though since everyone knows what I mean by it and no one at the Kew cares a ratsass what I think or call them. I have to agree on how good of a name riomizquiensis is. For instance cuzcoensis has an appallingly inadequate description that would never be accepted today (it was respected only due to gransfathering) Huanucoensis has NEVER had a description published so is not considered a species by any of today's experts. I believe this plant may be why Anderson expended bridgesii's range into Peru and increased its diameter to 7 inches but he did not include details and is dead so we will never know. Riomizquiensis has by far the best written desccription of any of these mentioned. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted January 9, 2008 Riomizquiensis has by far the best written desccription of any of these mentioned. Yes! and that's why I find it so interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 trucha Posted January 11, 2008 This one too I should probably not post due to still being copyrighted so I will remove it in a few days This is from Ritter's Kakteen in Sudamerika Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Gunter Posted January 16, 2008 Before deciding where to draw species lines a definition of what is required for something to be a species is needed. I have not yet met anyone who can give this definition and in the last year I have asked several professional botanists including Myron Kimnach and Jim Bauml. I have talked about this with non-cactus taxonomists. I would say that it is obvious that any single static defintion of a species will fail and several need to be applied, I have several I like, biological, allopatric, sympatric etc. I would apply and or correlate them all to any taxonomic investigation, however the group in question is so affected by its history of cultivation that even a very reasonable approach to cactus taxonomy would fail with trichocereus, and opuntia for that matter. Right now the crucial factor in something being or not being a species is whether David Hunt agrees with you. Its all political but that could form a book to discuss adequately. That is funny in the not too funny way... Its only our human obsession with cataloging and defining that causes the mess not the plants. We can call them whatever we want in horticulture. All that matters is that we know what another person is talking about when using a name. I hope we can all agree with that. Its not that I am smart, I just like to keep asking questions and keep digging rather than conclude I have reached any level of understanding. To me the meaningful stuff is not what answers my questions but the stuff that makes me find my world view collapse and a host of new questions arising. I'm presently unclear that any of those species exist as separate species. At best they appear to be subspecies or maybe are just divergent forms or perhaps peaks within a hybrid swarm. People would benefit from taking a single clone line and growing it in a set of different soils, different climates, different watering schedules and differnt amounts of sun. They will find plants result from this that a stranger might insist were separate species. you have a very good perspective Bridgesii is not valid for preservation as Echinopsis bridgesii was name earlier in the same paper as Trichocereus bridgesii. That is why lageniformis was chosen despite its lack of a anything approaching a good description. I'll keep calling them bridgesii though since everyone knows what I mean by it and no one at the Kew cares a ratsass what I think or call them. a rose by any other name... The PC like rio seems different to me in some ways, I think it might involve some PC alleles, but might not be the PC form. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 trucha Posted January 16, 2008 I got two plants labelled riomizquiensis from NMCR some years ago. One was said to be seed grown but was obviously a tip cut (the plant I ended up giving to SS). The other was a tiny seedling that had been grafted (it is now on its own roots) Both have been rather slow growing for me. They are like night and day compared to each other. Neither looks too much like Ritter's image although I thought that the image in the Martin Cardenas Botanical Garden sure does. For whatever reason I have never gotten a photo of the other NMCR plant to come out. I will resume working on that especially now that its new pup no longer looks like its mother's tip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Gunter Posted January 16, 2008 (edited) I also have two very different specimens with the same epithet, one is very PC like(SS), the other however is very different. I believe it came from NMCR, I obtained the cutting from M. S. Edited January 16, 2008 by Archaea Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted January 17, 2008 If anybodys knows were to obtain Riomizquensis cuts or seeds, please let me know... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mark80 Posted January 17, 2008 If anybodys knows were to obtain Riomizquensis cuts or seeds, please let me know... As soon as I got my T. riomizquensis from S.S., I looked at it and thought- "That looks like a San Pedro"... I think you answered your own question Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mark80 Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) oops double post,. Edited January 17, 2008 by mark80 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) I want another source! Here's mine! Cactus- Trichocereus riomizquensis Vendor- Trichocereus riomizquensis “FR856" obtained from S. S. in Dec. 2007. Location of Origin- Campero, Cochabamba, Bolivia Collector- Seed collected by Friedrick Ritter in the late 1950s. Notes- A Pachanoid related to T. bridgesii and T. scopulicolus. Edited January 17, 2008 by Teotz' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted April 21, 2008 (edited) So do y'all think my Trichocereus "riomizquensis" is the real deal? P.S.- I patiently waited a long time before bumping this... (4 months) Edited April 21, 2008 by Teotz' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 M S Smith Posted April 21, 2008 It is the "real deal" in regards to it matching the T. riomizquensis that is currently on the market, but that it is on the market under this name does not necessarily mean that plants matching this description exist in the Rio Mizque area of Bolivia. I've made attempts to locate photos and contact people in the area to get some better photos of the Trichocereus of Cochabamba, but with little luck. T. riomizquensis looks like a longer spined variant of the so-called "Backeberg clone" to me, the latter of which I've suspected is a plant from Bolivia and closer in relation to T. bridgesii than to the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru...but I've said this all too many times already. ~Michael~ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted April 21, 2008 (edited) Thanks for the response! but that it is on the market under this name does not necessarily mean that plants matching this description exist in the Rio Mizque area of Bolivia. That's what I was thinkin... I wanna see what a real Trichocereus riomizquensis looks like.... one from the Rio Mizque area of Bolivia. Edited April 21, 2008 by Teotz' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted May 27, 2008 Anybody ever come up with any pics of Trichocereus riomizquensis in habitat? Or just... any other pictures of supposed "Riomizquensis" cacti? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted August 4, 2008 Anybody notice Trichocereus riomizquensis grows slow as HELL?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 George Posted August 10, 2008 I have something that looks like this picture. Horticulture sells it as a short spined patch. I personally believe we missed some names like these somewhere or we really could use some. There is certainly a whole lot of different looking stuff under pachanoi at the moment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
I was wondering what features can reliably recognize a Trichocereus riomizquensis?
From my personal observations I believe the "San Pedro predominant cultivator" represents T. riomizquensis much better than it does T. pachanoi.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites