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

My understanding is that the reason the plant was called the backeberg clone was to distituish it from T pachanoi, so as to give it moniker apart from pachanoi. I believe that even without flowers the plant is clear distict from typical pachanoi including published descriptions. While it is even at present far from clear to most of the people growing this plant that it is likely atypical in form the idea itself is pretty widespread among many people. I believe that this distinction is not something someone should be given credit with observing, to me it is like saying that peyote was discovered by the first people who published about it.

I obtained a cuttings of a plant about 5 feet long last year with brown and black haired floral buds that faded to white with an inner brown color. It resembled the pachanot a great deal but was a bit thicker than I have seen the pachanot and it lacked a pronounced vascular core. Under my own conditions it is somewhat indistinct from pachanot. It came from downed sections in northern california.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

post-608-1234657767_thumb.jpg

PC?

This plant was a new addition at some local botanic gardens. It was a very healthy width, indicating full sun I'd have thought but yet it continued to display tiny spines after becoming established, both at the tip and on new pups. Unfortunately it no longer exists(stolen) to view any possible flowers. The spines were noticably smaller than on any local PC I have seen.

post-608-1234657767_thumb.jpg

post-608-1234657767_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I've not yet encountered the term Backeberg's clone anywhere in print preceding my sad entries (the first in a perfectbound format being 11 years go and the first in a GBC format 13?). I've seen no shortage of people mentioning it SINCE then. Mostly in the wake of the San Pedro book of much more recently.

Let me know if you find any earlier place of publication or occurrence of use. I'd only previously heard it used in conversations with a very limited number northern CA growers (2?) to discuss the vastly predominate clone, mostly in discussions in the early 1990s concerning its strong infertility when selfed. I never encountered it as widespread term but liked it which is why I included it in Sacred Cacti when discussing pachanoi. Again a sad move on my part.

I'd love to know its first point of usage.

That is certainly why it was used though. Althougth not in any large or formal way that I am aware of though. I've never encountered a plant labeled as that prior to putting it in print for instance. Nor since for that matter.

There was huge interest in the rapidly expanding ethnobotanical community in those days (early 1990s) to get more bona fide pachanoi and peruvianus into the marketplace in the US as they were very few and far between unless you lived in southern CA and knew what to look for. Its nice it is slowly but surely been happening. Knize has played a hugely positive role in that.

I doubt whoever it was that first called it Backeberg's clone knew squat about its origin. My guess is they read Backeberg and connected the dots with no further data.

Call me a cynic but us humans sure tend to try to connect the dots whether the data permits it or not. I think it is probably hardwiring?

If it was as you suggest something more widely known there is going to be a paper trail. Be it a mention in a book, a cactus journal or a cactus company catalog.

Photos next flowering and fruiting would be great.

A really nice camera can be had for very little money anymore.

I've only seen a decrease in the depth of color not an actual change of color in the pachanot. Now on longer lasting hairs like felt fading to grey to white or cacti with long lasting hairs seeing a fading away of colors to white or grey over time has been really common.

What color was the hair on the fruit?

Do you live in a hot climate?

Again though, so far as the pachanot goes, its not just hair color that indicates this is not pachanoi as described by Backeberg, Britton & Rose, Ritter, Ostolaza or Madsen but other features mentioned above. Its worth going back to all of those and assembling a view of what they saw and said. Too much of what is being said in thee forum conversations about this plant and pachanoi is based on something extrapolated and not within their words. Plant species should fit their descriptions because those descriptions are conventions created by humans for humans to use as a cognitive map so you and I can discuss something. Nouns are really nice to have defined or understanding degenerates easily. Its certainly possible for novel or even intermittenly expressed divergences to occur within defined species but those are something that can be demonstrated when it occurs. For some weird reason despite its intense presence in horticulture that does not seem to be something that is easily accomplished for the pachanot?

You were asking for names and conjectures on points of introductions. Does that represent either the willingness or an offer to help interview people?

I'll get a page together this Fall with a focus on illustrating those points and comparing them to the photos amassed by friends and hopefully myself in Ecuador and Peru this summer.

Maybe its got pachanoi in it, maybe its a pachanoi, maybe its not. Right now we can do a lot of verbal and mental masturbation but that is really all we can say beyond what's been said. Unless something new and supportable occurs of course.

Time will tell what is real. At the moment all of us know very little. On many levels that will always be the case but I am hopeful in this tiny area we are going to learn more as field work and nurseryman interviews unfold.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

SB-

The Arboretum?

That's a big problem with botanical gardens. I've visited some plants on pubic display now for more than 15 years and have yet to see them flower. In some cases I've yet to see them get past 2-3 feet.

An interesting thing was commented on by the curator of the Huntington. He said their single biggest decrease in thefts occurred when they started charging a decent admission price.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
I've not yet encountered the term Backeberg's clone anywhere in print preceding my sad entries (the first in a perfectbound format being 11 years go and the first in a GBC format 13?)

I first started using the term in online conversations with Mr. Smith(who may have introduced the term to me) around 2004/2005. I know I had not read any of your works then and I used the term with the intention of serving to render it distinct from T pachanoi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
You were asking for names and conjectures on points of introductions. Does that represent either the willingness or an offer to help interview people?

Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

There are things to be learned in New Mexico, Arizona, Washington DC, NY, Chicago, the Kew, Berlin-Dahlen, the San Diego/Vista area, several directions from but around LA, Oakland, SF & the North Bay/beyond at a minimum.

Its way too much for me or the people already involved so it would be nice to split up the load more?

I'm very open to any level of input even if it was sporadic and limited.

The best thing would be to base what was done on what was conveniently possible?

I think that Michael and I started discussing these plants around 1999. It could have been a bit earlier or not long after. It was largely hardcopy communication in those days not email so this is something I can find when it is drier outside.

Sacred Cacti went to print in perfectbound in 1997 published by Narayan Communications. That's the first place of public publication that I know of. Either due to it or an online forum is how we met.

I think that particular differentiation capability is always our intention whatever words we choose to use to refer to this plant, Backeberg's clone, pachanoi PC, pachanot,

Words are funny things. What matters more than the choice of words is whether we understand that we are talking about the same thing.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That's good question.

There seems like something in Oz may be separate and have white hair but its a lot of unknowns.

There IS at least one plant line in Oz that looks like what is in the US. Its still a lot of unknowns at present.

In Oz though there are a lot of other pachanoi sorts, in at least parts of the country, maybe even all of it, based on what limited experience I have of visiting people's gardens there I would say that they are what predominate rather than the PC/pachanot.

Its a problem right now in that sometimes names get applied based on a best fit scenario by one person and then once it leaves their hands and goes one or two more propagators beyond that it had acquired a legitimacy when encountered. Its a really tricky picture to sort out. The nursery industry is among the worse sources of bad information due to the sad tendency of many people to be unable to say "I don't know." or not ask questions about labeling.

Some of the nicest plants I have ever bought have been mislabeled. I know of more than one company that always mislabels their pachanot as something else entirely. Its better to be able to recognize them than the name.

If the plant in that past photo is from where I wondered then yes, it came from the same commercial growers shown on the pachanot page. Like any of these trichs, it can be really different depending on enviromental factors. That garden lost some of theirs to freeze not theft when it dipped into the teens a couple winters ago?

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
is the plant called 'pachanoi pc' in oz the same as in the usa?

t s t .

That's what I often wonder.

If they're not it would be remarkable as they generally seem alike in every way.

EDIT: I seem to recall Herbalistics selling something I think they thought was the US PC. They'd be the people to ask.

Edited by strangebrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

strangebrew, yeah man, you no doubt have the same BC/PC plant in Australia that is in the States, but you also have what appear to be a few hybrids of it. I think it was you who asked me about a few plants that looked like the common BC/PC, but were just slightly off. The BC/PC is pretty much the same under most conditions and easily recognized, but I must admit, there are a few there that have "the look," but are just a bit different.

But hey, how about a picture of what you consider the "'pachanoi pc' in oz" just to be sure?

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

post-608-1234768507_thumb.jpgpost-608-1234768399_thumb.jpg

1st gets sun, 2nd mainly shade.

There does appear to be a near spineless plant floating around Australia - clicky linky.

Maybe that's the same as the one I posted previously. The other one almost looks a little too spiny though, I dunno, hard to say.

http://www.australianethnobotany.com/viewt...&highlight=

post-608-1234768399_thumb.jpg

post-608-1234768507_thumb.jpg

post-608-1234768399_thumb.jpg

post-608-1234768507_thumb.jpg

Edited by strangebrew

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?

Ok, it seems i was telling a lil fib here...... When cleaning out my shed today (a loooooong overdue job) i cam across an old seed pod with a plastic tag sticking out of it. "Rob pach X psycho0" Took me a lil bit to realise what it was but then i worked it out. The mother of this cross is a pachanoi that looks VERY similar to the so called "pachanot" except it has the black hairs not the typical mostly white. Thankfully when i took this picture of this plant it wasnt far off flowering so you can clearly see the black haired buds. It is the only pachanoid plant i got from Robert when i was there and i havent collected any other pachanois from any other Roberts so it is obviously this plant.

post-1464-1234774556_thumb.jpg

You will have to zoom in to see the buds clearly, is a large plant!

I dont know why this one got lost and forgotten about, i must of had enough of cleaning seed that year but i have it now. Is a bugger though, the seedlings could be an inch tall by now.

.....time will tell.

IMG_0129.JPG

IMG_0129.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
The other one almost looks a little too spiny though, I dunno, hard to say.

I was thinkin that myself SB but like you mention it is hard to say due to it being a picture for one, which never really captures what you see in person and secondly the fact that there seems to be so much variability in the plant we all call pachanoi here in AU. I wish my bloody camera was working!!!

I have at times suspected that there is 2 types here, one being a much fatter, heavier spined plant and the other a skinnier, smaller spined to almost spineless plant. When i look at what i sometimes think are different plants they often show the same traits depending on conditions of growth. I have talked about this with a few ppl and the usual conclusion is "yeh, its hard to say isnt it". X pollination doesnt seem to work though which prolly should if they are two different plants. Ill try Xing them again when they flower but im not expecting anything to happen.

its all pach to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Its odd cross pollination would not work.

Pachanoi and the pachanot seem to want to and be able to cross with almost anything in or around the entire genus Echinopsis (literally from Lobivia through Echinopis multiplex through terscheckii).

The pachanot does not want to pollinate itself though.

Basing specific relationships on pollination capabilities only works for animal species not plants. Many plants can cross across genus lines not just species.

Many times this is operator problems. Habermann claimed an inability to cross pollinate some of his Lophos (like fricii) but the only person I know of who has tried on that particular one did not experience his failure. One common problem I've seen is that pollen is often not actually ripe when the flowers first open and can be harvested or transferred too early.

It would be a surprise if someone had not brought or sent a pachanot cutting to Oz at some point.

CITES restrictions are ignored by many people.

Juuls giant is there (as of nearly a decade ago) as are a host of trich cuttings shipped or carried from the states and elsewhere by individuals who did not care about CITES. (I am ignoring the huge number of seeds that I know of being planted in Oz and grown successfully)

And vice versa. A nice little "FR991" scop from Gardenworld that a friend popped into the mail some years back is still alive here.

This is a good example of what is possible with cacti and some grey zones that come up. This plant was started in Oz from Ritter seeds a long time ago (they initially got their stock from another place farther south) but they have been producing their own SEED for years now. Are those really still now FR991?

One single cutting could now be a great many feet on a large numbers of individuals in just a few years with the right attention.

Unless they've been exposed to focused propagation in commerce a lot of people might not understand just what is possible. Its quite crazy in fact. A single decade of this effort can mean a huge number of plants.

There are at least several distinct lineages of pachanoi in Oz in addition to those two.

That one white wooly one said to be from Ecuador that seems distinct from the pachanot, the one that looks like a pachanot, a slightly longer spined one that looks more scoplike but was said to also be a field collection from Ecuador originally, a really smooth edged short spined one looking like a shaman's pachanoi and a number of variably spiny ones including some that are shorter spined but pachanotlike and others that are up to really long spined. A decent number of these came from seeds.

Oz has far greater diversity than the US from what I've seen (granted I've only spent a total of less than two months there)

Photos of all of these are in the San Pedro book (the spiny scoplike one is mistakenly placed under scop in that book) but I can get images posted here at some point as well.

Flowers and fruit are required to ID the trichs for a reason. They are all too variable if trying to use sterile morphology.

Even flowers and fruit can vary but they give us more consistency than spines and simple appearance both of which can be dramatically impacted by growth conditions.

It would be worth determining where Gardenworld originally got their stock of pachanoi? And then where their source got theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

the pachanot first seems to have appeared in the usa in late 50's to early 1960's.......is this correct?

could it have come by way of oz?

t s t .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

So do you consider mine US PC or not? I've seen the Geelong one, I'm sure we're talking about the same thing.

a slightly longer spined one that looks more scoplike but was said to also be a field collection from Ecuador originally

That's what people here have been calling Superpedro, rightly or wrongly.

a number of variably spiny ones including some that are shorter spined but pachanotlike and others that are up to really long spined

Like this?

post-608-1234830565_thumb.jpg

& I sure do wish someone would keep they're eyes peeled around Bondi. lol

post-608-1234830290_thumb.jpg

post-608-1234830290_thumb.jpg

post-608-1234830565_thumb.jpg

post-608-1234830290_thumb.jpg

post-608-1234830565_thumb.jpg

Edited by strangebrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

They aren't they best photographs but here are two pachanot X SS02 plants that look quite close to pachanot, next to a cutting of MG small spine peruvianus that I consider more authentic in terms of the epithet of pachanoi. post-1018-1234834512_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1234834529_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1234834512_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1234834529_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1234834512_thumb.jpg

post-1018-1234834529_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Plant species should fit their descriptions because those descriptions are conventions created by humans for humans to use as a cognitive map so you and I can discuss something. Nouns are really nice to have defined or understanding degenerates easily. Its certainly possible for novel or even intermittenly expressed divergences to occur within defined species but those are something that can be demonstrated when it occurs.

I disagree and find the logic of this a slippery slope fallacy as that if it were true there would be no revision of taxonomy.

Moreover if you suggest that the plants should conform to published descriptions I should expect you intend to teach them to read.

Do you not find some degree of contrast between the description of the original authors of the epithet and Backeberg?

Why even rely upon any descriptions after B&R?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I would suggest you are mistaking the map for the terrain.

The notion of species is not a real thing its a thought construct.

I ask nothing of the plants. They don't listen or care what anyone calls them or wants to categorize them. This species stuff is for us humans not for them.

We've had this conversation before?

The only concept of plant species I am referring to in that statement (as I keep trying to point out) is those limited constructs that we create so we can discuss things. I'm really actually not wanting very much more than agreement on definitions of nouns we are using in speech.

A plant species is defined by the person who wrote the description -- assuming the right people agree. This is just what a a description, by definition, does.

Its literally a mere snapshot out of what they could have encountered - ideally backed by herbarium vouchers - and is eventually supported by later field work by others or not. If the details are found to be in need of revision any level of revision merited is possible.

Its not real for that reason but rather is something not just a mental working map that is always going to be fairly amorphose and subject-to-being-better-defined. Its just a working convention subject to revision as often as growth of understanding permits.

While not real it also needs to be accessible to be functional. This is where the printed word is of value.

None of it is gospel. Its just a draft copy of a map. We can rewrite the map but it requires facts and data to so this though not just being unhappy with how badly the picture may have been defined or misdefined.

Understanding what is has been written is quite helpful towards understanding what those same people may have encountered in the field when comparing their words to what still exists. Its a rather consistent picture actually.

Why not value Backeberg?

Britton & Rose described the species as having black hair. What Backeberg found at Huancabamba had dark brown hair which he mentions.

Britton & Rose never visited Huancabamba. So what is puzzling?

When you speak of logic this is within a sentence in need of better application of the same. I'm not using logic in that particular instance you mention, I'm just blindly following a definition that someone else most often now long dead set down on paper.

This is perhaps the best reason why a description is of value despite its inherent lack of reality (since we can only describe what we can encounter):

If you or I do not agree with it and how it fits the real world then its up to you or me to establish the details justifying why you or I might be right and that definitions (ie description) needs modification or shitcanning.

The same is true for anyone.

This requires actually doing work backed by some sort of supportive evidence, and if none exists then doing whatever work is required to generate it, and having openness of mind in the data gathering process so as not to exclude anything that does not seem to fit.

Its far easier to complain and not do anything positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

On the Oz plant questions yes.

Superpedro, that's the one. I'd love to know more on that one but do not yet.

Other long and not as long spined pachanois exist there too.

If anyone in Oz can hep me pull together data there better as well that would be hugely appreciated.

I'm slowly trying to get the trichocereus name list at the troutsnotes website to include all original descriptions and subsequent ones (when I can do so without violating copyright which means either old ones or permission both of which routes I am taking)

Any historical data I can find out about cultivars and lineages of these plants I would like to include as well so please keep me in mind when learning things.

History is something that is ephemeral and readily perishable when it comes to gardeners and garden plants. A lot of valuable stuff still exists in those old timer's heads. The most people who can help with creating this the better the picture can be?

Its just an thought anyway.

the pachanot seems to have appeared during that time frame yes but I'm still trying to narrow it down.

As for where it came from to get to California? That's really anyone's guess at this point. Anything is possible especially before CITES shut down most of the legitimate international cactus trade.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Seems our friend the Pachanot is from Peru..correct me if i am wrong but the picture on page 47 of this link to a google book clearly shows our beloved pachanot...well it certainly looks like it to me...what do you lot think....!!!

I know Mr Smith has said on many many occasions particularly over at the nook that he has never seen "Pachanot" anywhere in the wild in South America..I had a feeling it was from Mexico or simply native to California perhaps..but to me in the picture in that link it certainly looks like the Pachanot.

H.

Edited by Hunab Ku

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  

×