Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
M S Smith

On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus

Question

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.

TpachHN017.jpg

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.

TperuKK242_Tpach005.jpg

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.

TperuShortSpinedCactusCorral040.jpg

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).

TperuvianusBS007.jpg

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.

Tperuvianus-cuzcoensisQ1.jpg

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.

TmacrogonusOsprey003.jpg

TmacrogonusOsprey005.jpg

TmacrogonusKohres005.jpg

TmacrogonusSAB.jpg

TspRS0004_003.jpg

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 Smith
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Nice article,probably the best thing to do is a field trip to gather seed.

What do people want from Peruvianus?

I would suggest looking for Trihocereus Mescalinii and bring it into cultivation,high alkaloid content,frost hardy,no spines and unusually wooly areoles,erect and basally branching,blue with very notched ribs,free flowering at an early age and self pollinating,pleasing hallucinations,rot resistant.

So who want's to go looking for this species?

Meet up in Lima perhaps?

Edited by Garbage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This is an awesome post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here's some photos I had to remove from the original essay due to the photo limitations here at SAB. These photos are included at the version at The Nook (with the exception of the second T. peruvianus photo below).

T. pachanoi "backeberg Clone":

TpachHN025.jpg

T. pachanoi "Kimnach," a plant representational of the Ecuadorian and Peruvian form of T. pachanoi:

TpachKimnach013.jpg

T. pachanoi aka "Short Spined T. peruvianus":

TperuShortSpinedCactusCorral041.jpg

T. peruvianus of the sort from Matucana, Peru:

TperuvianusBS008.jpg

T. peruvianus (this is the same plant as in the original post and immediately above):

TperuvianusBS013.jpg

"T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?):

Tperuvianus-cuzcoensisQ2.jpg

T. macrogonus (this is the same plant as the first two in the series of T. macrogonus above):

TmacrogonusOsprey007.jpg

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks Mr.Smith.

This T. peruvianus is just amazing!

TperuvianusBS013.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Bump, as I wanted to see if anyone had any further thoughts since I first posted it.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It's a fantastic little article... well deserving of a sticky, I think. Columnar Echinopsis/Trichocereus are fantastic plants, but are rather confusing given the interbreeding and mislabelling out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

great little article - thanks for sharing! also is there anywhere i can look at all of your photo's from over the years? theres some great piccies in this thread and thought there might be more. thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Nice post, thanks a lot. You don't know how much that helps a person that is new to cacti growing such as myself.

Cheers,

Gen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yeah, this is a succint and useful summary of the identification problem. For me personally I use pachanoi, macrogonus and peruvianus to differentiate between plants that to me are quite distinct, but as to correct terminology, who knows. They are certainly distinct forms, and yet quite possibly have derived from a common plant, or adapted differently to their environmental conditions.

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.

I'm interested in this statement. So the backeberg clone or predominant cultivar of T.pachanoi as it is sometimes called in Oz, and which is quite prolific here, is unable to crossbreed with other pach, perus and macros? or have I mis-read this statement. If this is so, all the hybrid forms in Australia are therefore not hybridized with this 'backeberg clone'?

Nice work anyhow, beautiful plants,

Micro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thank you michael,im gonna be refering back to this post alot!

This post should be pinned under correct id for T.pach-Peruvian,

beautiful photo's and like miteek asked,is there anywhere we

can view your album?

Great stuff B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Micromegas, the "Backeberg clone/predominant clone" can only be breed with plants that do not match it (such a Peru/Ecudor T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, etc.) as all the plants that match it are of identical genetics. It is a very widespread clone, but it is interesting to note that there doesn't seem to be any plants out there that seem to match it but which aren't genetically identical. The plant that looks most like the BC/PC is T. riomizquensis. The BC/PC appear to be the form of "T. pachanoi" used by Sacred Succulents in the majority of their T. pachanoi hybrids.

Birdman, you ready!

http://flickr.com/photos/msscacti

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks Michael, that makes perfect sense, quite interesting too. So now if any of my PC/BCs get fruit I'll know they are a hybrid of some kind.

Again, great photos and great collection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Trichocereus riomizquensis from S.S.

cactus042-1.jpg

I have come to find that it is NOT a "Pre-dominant cultivator" Trichocereus pachanoi but a unique clone of Trichocereus pachanoi with V-shaped notchs and spines much larger than the "Pre-dominant cultivator" Trichocereus pachanoi.

Edited by Teotz'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That you haven't "come to find" that it is not the BC/PC differs from no one else as no one has ever claimed that it is the BC/PC. And there is seriously not enough prevalence of a V-notch to even consider the plant as having it to any degree more or less than the BC/PC. Both plants will show the occasional shallow V-notch, usually on new growth, but it is not present to any degree near that of other species which are clearly described as bearing V-notches. The BC/PC is quite similar to T. riomizquensis with the exception of the latter having sightly longer spines, but even if, hypothetically, these two plant were of the same species the differences in spine length between two genetically distinct plants of the same species wouldn't be significant. These two could easily show such differences in spination even if the same species.

Here's a T. riomizquensis from NMCR, which I suspect is the same clone as that sold by Sacred Succulents. My personal opinion is that it, like the BC/PC plant, bears a closer genetic relationship to T. bridgesii than to the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru, the latter of which quite clearly displays regular and prevalent V-notches.

426588180_ac926e798f_o.jpg

~Michael~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

From seed they do not seem to come true to type,at least 4000 years of cultivation and hybridising in their Andean homeland most likely played it's part.

From a packet of seed you may will get an incredible amount of variation.

The fruit,of which i had one,tasted better than dragon fruit but they split when ripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Is that a flower or are you just pleased to see me?

1000662bi8.th.jpg

Click to enlarge for some V notch action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

i recall a story of an american plant breeder/experimenter,burbank?,developed many new plant forms including cactii with reduced spines.something about shaving off the spines to encourage it to not need them,old memory,might have the book here,dubious source !

t s t .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi, I thought this might be the right place to ask about Echinopsis cordobensis (Lance plant). I recently purchased one without really knowing much about it. Is it comparable to pachanoi, peruviansus or macrogonus in terms of chemical content. Is it fast growing. What is it best suited for ie grafting lophs or cultivation for it's own use. It's a really attractive specimen anyhow. I should learn to post a picture. Any feedback appreciated. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
i recall a story of an american plant breeder/experimenter,burbank?,developed many new plant forms including cactii with reduced spines.something about shaving off the spines to encourage it to not need them,old memory,might have the book here,dubious source !

I got a pic of Mr.Burbanks' Peruvianus...

cactus048-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

recall a story of an american plant breeder/experimenter,burbank?,developed many new plant forms including cactii with reduced spines.something about shaving off the spines to encourage it to not need them,old memory,might have the book here,dubious source !

thats lamarkian evolution, i wonder if he stated his clone was becuase of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hey, I'm a newbie so forgive my being a bit blatant/naive. That Burbanks' pic looks pretty much like my plant. I'm just discovering the cacti world and the information and misinformation I have found so far is a bit much to take in. Can you at least give me a straight answer about my plant cordobensis and where it fits i the classification picture? After a bit of googling around I realize I am a minnow in a pond of much older and wiser fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Hi, I thought this might be the right place to ask about Echinopsis cordobensis (Lance plant). I recently purchased one without really knowing much about it. Is it comparable to pachanoi, peruviansus or macrogonus in terms of chemical content. Is it fast growing. What is it best suited for ie grafting lophs or cultivation for it's own use. It's a really attractive specimen anyhow. I should learn to post a picture. Any feedback appreciated. Thanks

Hey, I'm a newbie so forgive my being a bit blatant/naive. That Burbanks' pic looks pretty much like my plant. I'm just discovering the cacti world and the information and misinformation I have found so far is a bit much to take in. Can you at least give me a straight answer about my plant cordobensis and where it fits i the classification picture? After a bit of googling around I realize I am a minnow in a pond of much older and wiser fish.

Sure we can do that... but let's start your own thread for it, ok?

Here I'll help you out...

Just post your questions here...

...and remember, each thread has a specific topic, and we need to stay on that topic in that thread, so if you want to bring up a new subject, just start a new thread. You can do that by clicking "New Topic" in the main area of each forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Macrogonus and Peruvianus spines get's described as brown from the first. Is the yellow starts in this thread an environmental effect?

?????

Peruvianus

n1133133193_76349_8873.jpg

Macrogonus/Peruvianus?

pappa2.jpg

I can't see this ones tip. But it looks like it has brown starts.

TspRS0004_003.jpg

Edited by George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I bought a cactus at the markets on sunday that was supposed to be a peruvianus pachanoi hybrid... It looks the part but on closer inspection, when I got home, I noticed it doesn't have the V-shaped texture between the ribs I noticed on the pachanoi I recieved last year. It seems all the photos of trichs on here have that same texture...

Could anyone please elaborate on this for me?

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

×