Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
trucha

Michael's pachanot

Question

This is likely to be old news for many people following assorted threads here and elsewhere but I finally got around to creating a page discussing Michael's observations concerning the predominate San Pedro clone in the USA.

Please see http://www.largelyaccurateinformationmedia...edro/pedro.html

Comments or feedback are welcomed although responses will be much faster if sent to or cc'd to [email protected] or [email protected]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Though I have for some time held that the BC/PC/Pachanot was not in line with the proper, and highly variable, T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru I can't help but wonder what it is. You stated that "flowers, areoles, spination, stems, flowers, tube and fruit suggest pachanoiXbridgesii is plausible", and that is something I hadn't ignored, but certainly through it all I've held this plant to at least "have a closer relationship" to T. bridgesii than do the proper T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru. I look forward to your digging deeper into this mystery as you will clearly have better access to resources than I. I'm happy to see that another one of my thoughts finds some bit of validation.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I have crossed T bridge with an Ecuadorian type pachanoi but as you would imagine it has more of a bridgesii appearance although it is only the one plant of size atm. I have more of these seedlings around 9 months old now so should see a lot more variation within that lot. I havent managed yet to cross them with the pach as the mother and bridge as donor which would probably be the more likely scenario. Surely someone here or elsewhere has done a cross of this sort? Scopxbridge looks almost like the PC clone but not quiet the same.

Trucha, i though i read somewhere you had seen patches of the PC clone in Sth Am or at least pictures/reliable info?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

A long time friend of mine has spent many years doing ethnobotanical exploration in South America. He was my source for that information.

While I would LIKE to believe him, the growing body of evidence (and the discovery by myself of other careless errors in observation that he related as facts) suggests that I cannot, at least not without some sort of proof that is simply not in hand.

I have no vested stake in this having any specific outcome. I'll keep on adding whatever I can find.

One thing to remember is that if a person does a cross between pachanoi and bridgesii the first generation of seedlings is going to show a range of morphology. Someplace here there are images of assorted F1s for pachanoiXperuvianus and pachanoiXJuuls Giant posted that show this range shown by siblings.

That variability is in addition to the wild variability any of these lines can produce when grown out through vegetative propagation.

Its that wild variability which I think kept so many of us from looking into Michael's observation sooner and which still keeps a lot of people dismissing it with a knee jerk despite never looking into it.

To resolve what the pachanot is will require DNA work. That is certain to occur just not as fast as I would prefer.

It COULD be that from someplace within Paul Hutchison or Earl Gay's (or ??) field collecting or commercial greenhouse notes will emerge the answer but I'm not holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

At some point I'll be adding images that show why I am leaning towards a hybrid origin and why bridgesii seems to be involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

PD, I've seen a picture or two of Scop x Bridgesii (I'd love to see more) and did notice the similarity to the BC/PC/Pachanot. I've been digging and digging to find habitat photos of T. riomizquensis as its range is sort of midway between that of T. bridgesii to the north and T. scopuicola to the south, and the currently recognized T. riomizquensis most resembles the BC/PC/Pachanot, but who knows if this cultivated T. riomizquensis is what grows in Cochabamba in the region of the Rio Mizque. There are some intriguing photos I've posted previously of a Trichocereus growing at a botanical garden in Cochabamba. This needs to be explored further. I'll post pics latter once I'm at my other computer.

If we accept that a "first generation of seedlings is going to show a range of morphology" there is a possibility that the BC/PC/Pachanot is the offspring of a T. bridgesii with either T. scop or T. pachanoi and is just one branch of the possible variability. Just because it doesn't match exactly with the known Scop x Bridgesii doesn't mean that the slight differences between the two disqualifies them as having the same parents.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As always, excellent information and keen insight. While I am always applauding those who hybridize like PD. here and others... there is something nice to be said for having those pure specimens in ones collection or at least a few different local variations. I honestly can't remember if I've ever had a T. pachanoi that fits the description you have shown us here which has me thinking of seed sources for this one. Any suggestions Trout, Michael... anyone? My primary seed source is currently http://www.koehres-kaktus.de/index1gb.htm

In years past, http://www.mesagarden.com/, was my primary seed source for such cacti. None of these seedlings looked like anything in your picture.

Edited by Inyan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Inyan,

I've raised pachanoi seedlings from several sources,the only resulting seedlings that resembled pachanoi were from Knize,labled as 339.All the others were peru/cuzco types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I am going to test theory that your Pachanot of North American nursery stock is a T.Pachanoi X Echinopsis.

Last year i crossed T.Pachanoi with a squat Echinopsis multihybrid having a lilac tinge to the flowers,if these seeds grow columnar i can examine their orther morphological features.

I am going to use the Echinopsis seeds as i hand pollinated with pollen of several T.Pachanoi and had no other Echinopsis that could have fertilized these seeds.

I do not know if this particular Echinopsis is self sterile however.

Edited by Garbage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Most can probably just ignore this, but for those late to the party check out:

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

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...showtopic=17418

ID Help Please (San Pedros)

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...showtopic=11911

How to Recognize a Pachanoi

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...showtopic=15744

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Interesting topic.

I think it is much more speculative that K trouts usual work.

from my comments on this at the nook:

I have a fairly large collection and note that several of the plants outgrow the pachanot. Also my experience with freezing deaths also indicate that the so called pachanot is not very distinct as far as hardiness.

Moreover several entheogenic vendors and advocates who do and have grown the plant admit that they have done so out of the lack of availablity of alternatives.

Trout illustrates that the PC or pachanot or whatever you call it, is inconsistant with plants cultivated in the Andes for use.

The information is good for those who claim the PC to be "true pachanoi" it clearly shows that it is an atypical selection, however Trout has clearly illustrated the problems of identification in the entheo complex of the genus and thus the speculation that the plant is a hybrid (something I have speculated for years due to the traits of hybrids made with it) is unfounded (as a conclusion)

For years (about 10 or so) Mike argued that the plants than are typical Peru pachanoi were in his opinion hybrids and that the Backeberg clone was the true species. Funny how we can attribute observations to people who are repeating what others have said and ignore other observations they have made. The next time a cactus elitist author changes their mind on this they will likely have to be credited anew and another page made for the topic somewhere.

I can't help but wonder what new name for the clone the cactus elitists will come up with next. :scratchhead:

Edited by Archaea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That's a nice term you coined there Mr.Smith! I like "Pachanot"!

Edited by Teotz'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
That's a nice term you coined there Mr.Smith! I like "Pachanot"!

Not coined by me Teotz, but by trucha (aka K. Trout).

Garbage, that might be one of the coolest names I've seen suggested so far, but don't you think that is rather "elitist" of you? :lol:

Regarding Archaea's comments, many of which are meaningful, I can't help but feel that without such speculation and changes in views and opinions we would all have to refrain from saying anything out of fear that we may be incorrect. Whatever errors KT or myself present are our responsibility, but we also must be responsible to our own growing understanding, and though we may claim one thing one day and another a different day I see only problems with this if we present such error and changes in opinion with the intent to deceive. I can assure you that neither KT or myself are out to do that, but we certainly intend to be honest with our own growing understanding and share that with others who clearly show an interest in what we have to say. And regardless of Archaea's obvious inference that KT and myself are elitists I would like to assure him that neither of us have any interest in silencing his decent or stopping his ability to influence others towards his own views.

In the end neither KT or myself are going to change the classifications of any of these plants among botanist and those who are the real definers what plant qualifies as what species. And though KT and myself have had changes in opinions we are both open to new data, as if this wasn't the case we wouldn't find the need for change at all. Lastly, though KT and I understand our influence on a certain subset of the students of Trichocereus we both are out to help others grow in their understanding, not to tell them what to think.

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I like the guy raving about duff seed from Karel Knize,it's like Karel told the plants to set annoyingly variable seed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

KT, I've never stopped to ask Ben at Sacred Succulents what "T. pachanoi" he used for the variety of T. pachanoi hybrids. Do you know? I suppose I should drop him a line...it's been forever.

I suspect the "T. pachanot" particularly when I look at my T. pachanoi x SS02 (T. bridgesii) seed grown plants like these two which could easily be mistaken as not being hybrids of either, but rather as representing each parent.

post-19-1232498818_thumb.jpg post-19-1232498807_thumb.jpg

~Michael~

post-19-1232498807_thumb.jpg

post-19-1232498818_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Lots of trichocereus species are far more hardy (heat or cold) than either pachanoi or pachanot. I'm not aware of my making any claim to the contrary?

My discussion concerning such a thing involves only those two not other trichocereus. If I am in error please point me to what should be corrected.

Its certainly speculative as for it being a hybrid although this is supported by the flower and fruit studies of known hybrids that I've been in the midst of for a few years now. I THINK enough is online now to see why I have grown to believe this is the most likely scenario.

As for it being pachanoi and bridgesii? That certainly is speculative too although it does seem totally plausible based on the flowers at least.

Its going to be an simple one to determine one way or the other though.

The only way we are ever going to know what the pachanot is or is not is by being patient and wait for the DNA work to start. First step is identifying good pachanoi and bridgesii microsatellites. (That is probably still around two years off.) That is simple enough it just takes time and a decent lab. The rest will be easy too once the work actually begins.

Until then or until locating its point of entry identifying the pachanot as far as its original lineage will be pure speculation, which is why I am focusing on using images more than words.

I am a little confused on a comment though. Perhaps I misunderstand what it refers to:

"theory that your Pachanot of North American nursery stock is a T.Pachanoi X Echinopsis."

Who's theory is that in reference to?

How is Echinopsis being defined? Sensu lato or sensu stricto?

I'm also unclear how that test would work?

So far as I know all of the species that have been called Echinopsis, Lobivia or Trichocereus can cross with each other, tall or squat.

One of the most beautiful seedlings I've seen starting to grow up is an Echinopsis multiplex X Trichocereus terscheckii. Will it be tall or squat or in between? Another couple of years and we will know.

Sometimes though its harder to tell. Echinopsis forbesii turns out to be a synonym for Trichocereus validus. Only in cultivation do these get tall - even then only slowly (the ones at the HBG seem to grow around a foot per decade - more or less depending on whether they have a nurse plant). This is obscured by at least some validus being of unclear origin (Knize?) or having a reason for bearing the name validus.

Whether its a cultivar derived from a selection or a hybrid it does not merit any specific name. Most people call it San Pedro. That is a perfectly good common name even though it can apply to half a dozen cacti.

Knize has sold some bunk seed. He has also sold seeds with nearly 100% germination. Personally despite all his problems he has done us all a lot more good than harm. (The good being tonnage of nice plants and the harm being mass amounts of bad data)

I doubt any single person on the planet is responsible for more cactus plants being in cultivation than Karel Knize.

I would suggest that we will miss him when he dies as there is no one else who is better so far as getting Peruvian cactus and seeds out of Peru and into the marketplace.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

So far as I am aware the Sacred Succulents pachanoi clones were with the pachanot.

This is virtually the only pachanoi most people in the US have right now unless they were acquired in fairly recent years.

Meaning it is almost certain that any pachanoi crosses in the US that are available commercially involved the pachanot.

Its not clear when this appeared. Late 1950s or early 1960s seems to be the window but I'm still tracking this down.

Most growers have been really resistant to even hearing my discussion of this.

Perhaps because they fear they are going to waste a lot of valuable time talking with customers (while each customer may have one cactus dealer to talk with, that cactus dealer may have a hundred or more customers wanting to talk with them) or fending complaints (as if anyone growing these had other available choices in plants or knew anything different )

Please cut growers some slack on this.

We will all learn much more if we don't have to be interviewing defensive people.

Just to be clear though.

I am presently unaware of any meaningful reason that pachanoi (sensu stricto) and bridgesii should not be lumped into one species along with a bunch of others.

I'm not going there just yet. In a few years when more field work and flower studies are done I'll come back to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Or Mr Knize takes a step ladder with him on his motorcycle so he can reach to fertilize the good plants with awry pollen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

You got to admit KT, that's some crazy variability in plants eh? I've learned to minimize the amounts of hybrids in my collection by basically keeping two or three of each...a nice even mix, one at one end of the parental spectrum, and one on the other end. Honestly though, I have gotten to the point that I'm intentionally ignoring hybrids because there are simply too many of them.

I think once this info spreads around a bit more, which your writing and authority with cause, we will certainly see people demanding of cultivators "true" T. pachanoi as opposed to the "pachanot," this just as much as they have been doing since I brought up how much of the early T. peruvianus on the market appeared to be T. cuzcoensis.

Oh, and I'm with you on how everything from T. pachanoi to T. bridgesii can be considered the same species...I mean if I didn't then I would clearly have to say that my dogs, a Pug and an Australian Shepherd, were different species.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That's actually the whole point of much of this, all of these are insanely variable within themselves.

The reality about most of it is none of us, myself included, know what reality is concerning the identity and origin of many things we grow.

Its nice to try and sort out confusion but not to take any of it seriously since really its just about names in an area plagued by nomenclatural confusion since its earliest days.

Archaea's comments though caused me to wonder if some of what is online at the laim site is not readily apparent so I did some reoganization to try and make it more accessible to viewers and added a navigation bar rather than trusting everyone would spot all of the assorted internal links.

I'm certainly open to the possibility of being wrong.

Perhaps that grower in Oz will come through with the name of the person that supposedly collected that white hairy fruited plant in Ecuador along with collection data for it (image is at the laim site btw). Or perhaps the origin of Eltzner's apparent pachanot will become known as a wild collection.

None of that has happened though so this is where the present level of information/misinformation stands.

Patience and time will tell what is and what is not true.

Good luck on those people finding the real thing here in the USA! Its here certainly but I know of no commercial producer who is presently propagating it in any quantity much less taking cutting from large established mother plants.

Sounds like Knize is going to be getting a lot of new business for live cuttings.

People in Europe or in Oz should have no trouble on the other hand.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Knize is pretty old. I doubt he collects his own seeds unless out of his garden.

It would be nice to think someone will fill his shoes when he passes on.

I don't know the URL offhand as I somehow did not save it but some months ago stumbled across a Czech language cactus site with what was apparently some sort of blog that included a bunch of photos of Knize and his operation. Pictures can say far more than words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
I've never stopped to ask Ben at Sacred Succulents what "T. pachanoi" he used for the variety of T. pachanoi hybrids.

I have. It's the "Pachanot" the P.C. clone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

He did a pretty good job getting diverse genetic material out into the wider world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think that it would be nice to begin with a list of probable sources for the clone in question and use deduction to indicate to a degree of probability who could have introduced it. I don't see Backeberg as being removed from the list, I see him, or one of his contemporaries as the most likely source.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×