Here's something I threw together over the last day or two. It is more or less a repeat of some of the stuff I've said before, but I tried to put it in a little more order. I hope everyone likes it and finds it useful.
~Michael~
********
On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus
By Michael S. Smith
March 16, 2008
For years the plant in the following photo has gone by the name Trichocereus pachanoi and is widely known as the "Backeberg clone," apparently without clear support that this particular clone was introduced into US cultivation by Backeberg himself. This plant is particularly consistent in its growth habit and appears to be a true “clone” as it is unable to crossbreed with other matching its characteristics, thereby revealing that it is of a singular genetic make-up and a plant widely propagated through clippings. It has been the common form of T. pachanoi for decades, most likely due to its particularly hardy nature in the American southwest, the region from which it appears have had its origins into general cultivation. In the last few years there has been an increase in the importation of T. pachanoi from Ecuador and Peru, none of which match this clone. I have seen little support that the so-called "Backeberg clone" grows in Ecuador or Peru as a native and historically present plant, but it is likely present there now to a small degree in collections.
I have recently suggested that the so-called “Backeberg clone” is in fact a closer relative of T. bridgesii than to the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru. This needs to be explored further, but will likely need to await genetic tests.
Next is a somewhat typical T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru. This form of T. pachanoi is ubiquitous from Ecuador through Peru and to a smaller degree in Chile and northern Bolivia. It appears to have a much more prominent place in Ecuador and northern Peru than in the dryer conditions farther south. Spine length on this form can be quite variable, but the general rib formation remains fairly consistent.
Below is the so-called "short spined T. peruvianus." This name appear to be completely of my own doing when many years ago it was sent to me simply as a “T. peruvianus” and I added the "short spined" moniker to differentiate it from the then common long spined form of T. peruvianus that I have more recently suspected is T. cuzcoensis. This particular "short spined T. peruvianus" is clearly a form of T. pachanoi.
The “short spined T. peruvianus” may have had its source from the Berkeley Botanical Garden as it appears to be identical to their “Trichocereus sp. Peru #64.0762” which was collected by P. Hutchinson and J.K. Wright at the Canyon Rio Maranon above Chagual, Huamachuco Province, Peru.
As said before, the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru can be quite variable dependent upon genetics and breeding in different ranges, but this is almost solely in regards to spine length. Some T. pachanoi are mistakenly regarded as “short spined T. peruvianus” due to some considering the so-called “Backeberg clone” the standard T. pachanoi. I should note again that the “short spined T. peruvianus” is better understood as a T. pachanoi and not a T. peruvianus.
Below is the plant I consider an accurate representation of T. peruvianus. This plant is common in Department Lima, Peru, and in particular near the town of Matucana, the location assigned to the species by Britton & Rose. Like with T. pachanoi there is a range of variability in growth habit, particularly in spination, but also in regards to it being erect or decumbent. It is also much more glacous (“frosted”) than T. pachanoi, in all likelihood due to its location in the dryer south (glaucescence appearing to serve as a sort of reflective sunscreen for the plant).
This T. peruvianus is quite distinct from the plant below which I refer to as “T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)” and which was a common T. peruvianus in cultivation since the early 1990s and was said to come from Matucana, Peru, and often went by the collection number KK242 of Karol Knize.
This “T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)” plant does not appear to be represented in the Matucana region, but it does quite accurately match plants from Department Cuzco, Peru, the location of T. cuzcoensis. Hopefully at this point it should be needless to say that the T. cuzcoensis of the Cuzco region, like T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus, also shows degrees of variability.
Lastly, here are a few pictures of plants commonly referred to as T. macrogonus. The first two are of the same plant.
It is interesting to note the similarities between the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru, the T. peruvianus of Lima, and T. macrogonus. If you look closely they are somewhat upon a sliding scale, with the T. macrogonus appearing to be an intermediary between the T. pachanoi and the T. peruvianus. These three no doubt bear flowers that upon dissection would show them to be the same identical species, therefore the name of these three should be the species that was first named and described. T. macrogonus has the oldest name, but due to the confusion regarding it, and the fact that it was described from a plant in a European collection that lacked collection data, the species name should be either T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus. But this is confounded by the fact that these two were both described as “Species Nova” (“New Species”) by Britton & Rose without comment regarding which was described first. So in the end the overarching species should be called one of these two names alone. Regardless of this botanical understanding maintaining the use of two names is valuable when trying to speaking about plants that fit a certain type, and therefore whether you call a plant T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus, seeing that the main difference is in spination, is dependent upon the length of the spines. Plants that fall somewhere in-between seem to be quickly regarded as T. macrogonus, but there is nothing that points towards T. macrogonus being any different than T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus with the exception that it has spination somewhat intermediate between these two main species.
Well I hope that helps a little bit and isn’t too confusing. I’m sure those who are students of these plants will take something from it, but please note there is nothing definitive about my opinions and they will require further research from those in a better position than I.
Question
M S Smith
Here's something I threw together over the last day or two. It is more or less a repeat of some of the stuff I've said before, but I tried to put it in a little more order. I hope everyone likes it and finds it useful.
~Michael~
********
On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus
By Michael S. Smith
March 16, 2008
For years the plant in the following photo has gone by the name Trichocereus pachanoi and is widely known as the "Backeberg clone," apparently without clear support that this particular clone was introduced into US cultivation by Backeberg himself. This plant is particularly consistent in its growth habit and appears to be a true “clone” as it is unable to crossbreed with other matching its characteristics, thereby revealing that it is of a singular genetic make-up and a plant widely propagated through clippings. It has been the common form of T. pachanoi for decades, most likely due to its particularly hardy nature in the American southwest, the region from which it appears have had its origins into general cultivation. In the last few years there has been an increase in the importation of T. pachanoi from Ecuador and Peru, none of which match this clone. I have seen little support that the so-called "Backeberg clone" grows in Ecuador or Peru as a native and historically present plant, but it is likely present there now to a small degree in collections.
I have recently suggested that the so-called “Backeberg clone” is in fact a closer relative of T. bridgesii than to the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru. This needs to be explored further, but will likely need to await genetic tests.
Next is a somewhat typical T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru. This form of T. pachanoi is ubiquitous from Ecuador through Peru and to a smaller degree in Chile and northern Bolivia. It appears to have a much more prominent place in Ecuador and northern Peru than in the dryer conditions farther south. Spine length on this form can be quite variable, but the general rib formation remains fairly consistent.
Below is the so-called "short spined T. peruvianus." This name appear to be completely of my own doing when many years ago it was sent to me simply as a “T. peruvianus” and I added the "short spined" moniker to differentiate it from the then common long spined form of T. peruvianus that I have more recently suspected is T. cuzcoensis. This particular "short spined T. peruvianus" is clearly a form of T. pachanoi.
The “short spined T. peruvianus” may have had its source from the Berkeley Botanical Garden as it appears to be identical to their “Trichocereus sp. Peru #64.0762” which was collected by P. Hutchinson and J.K. Wright at the Canyon Rio Maranon above Chagual, Huamachuco Province, Peru.
As said before, the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru can be quite variable dependent upon genetics and breeding in different ranges, but this is almost solely in regards to spine length. Some T. pachanoi are mistakenly regarded as “short spined T. peruvianus” due to some considering the so-called “Backeberg clone” the standard T. pachanoi. I should note again that the “short spined T. peruvianus” is better understood as a T. pachanoi and not a T. peruvianus.
Below is the plant I consider an accurate representation of T. peruvianus. This plant is common in Department Lima, Peru, and in particular near the town of Matucana, the location assigned to the species by Britton & Rose. Like with T. pachanoi there is a range of variability in growth habit, particularly in spination, but also in regards to it being erect or decumbent. It is also much more glacous (“frosted”) than T. pachanoi, in all likelihood due to its location in the dryer south (glaucescence appearing to serve as a sort of reflective sunscreen for the plant).
This T. peruvianus is quite distinct from the plant below which I refer to as “T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)” and which was a common T. peruvianus in cultivation since the early 1990s and was said to come from Matucana, Peru, and often went by the collection number KK242 of Karol Knize.
This “T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)” plant does not appear to be represented in the Matucana region, but it does quite accurately match plants from Department Cuzco, Peru, the location of T. cuzcoensis. Hopefully at this point it should be needless to say that the T. cuzcoensis of the Cuzco region, like T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus, also shows degrees of variability.
Lastly, here are a few pictures of plants commonly referred to as T. macrogonus. The first two are of the same plant.
It is interesting to note the similarities between the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru, the T. peruvianus of Lima, and T. macrogonus. If you look closely they are somewhat upon a sliding scale, with the T. macrogonus appearing to be an intermediary between the T. pachanoi and the T. peruvianus. These three no doubt bear flowers that upon dissection would show them to be the same identical species, therefore the name of these three should be the species that was first named and described. T. macrogonus has the oldest name, but due to the confusion regarding it, and the fact that it was described from a plant in a European collection that lacked collection data, the species name should be either T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus. But this is confounded by the fact that these two were both described as “Species Nova” (“New Species”) by Britton & Rose without comment regarding which was described first. So in the end the overarching species should be called one of these two names alone. Regardless of this botanical understanding maintaining the use of two names is valuable when trying to speaking about plants that fit a certain type, and therefore whether you call a plant T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus, seeing that the main difference is in spination, is dependent upon the length of the spines. Plants that fall somewhere in-between seem to be quickly regarded as T. macrogonus, but there is nothing that points towards T. macrogonus being any different than T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus with the exception that it has spination somewhat intermediate between these two main species.
Well I hope that helps a little bit and isn’t too confusing. I’m sure those who are students of these plants will take something from it, but please note there is nothing definitive about my opinions and they will require further research from those in a better position than I.
Edited by M S SmithLink to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
11
8
5
4
Popular Days
Jul 11
7
Jul 13
6
Jun 23
5
Jul 10
5
Top Posters For This Question
M S Smith 11 posts
mutant 8 posts
Micromegas 5 posts
Cactus Wes 4 posts
Popular Days
Jul 11 2008
7 posts
Jul 13 2008
6 posts
Jun 23 2018
5 posts
Jul 10 2008
5 posts
Popular Posts
M S Smith
Here's something I threw together over the last day or two. It is more or less a repeat of some of the stuff I've said before, but I tried to put it in a little more order. I hope everyone likes it
M S Smith
I don't think there is a significantly meaningful difference at all between T. peruvianus, a species of some variability, and most horticultural offerings of T. macrogonus. ~Michael~
Cactus Wes
Here is a one year old Pachanoi Juul's Giant X Bridgesii Lumberjack. It already has nice coloration to it. The spines come out reddish and then turn white with red spots. Pretty sweet but unfort
Posted Images
54 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.