Cactus of Cochabamaba, Bolivia

[M S Smith]

In another recent thread I mentioned a photo find of mine that would be a bit interesting, well we got permission to post the pictures at the following link.

http://www.largelyaccurateinformationmedia...bamba_Dani.html

I thought the plant interesting as it bore some subtle similarities to the BC/PC "pachanot," or at least more than I have seen with any other plant. kt may pop in eventually and say his thoughts about it, some of which he has already shared with me, but I will leave that to him.

I wouldn't put this plant past being T. riomizquensis, but might it have affinities to T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola too? What do you think?

I got more shots of similar Trichocereus from Cochabamba so I'll follow up later with them.

~Michael~

Edited February 27, 2009 by M S Smith

[Chiral]

I know shit compared to some in these circles but the ribs look too sunken, thin and skinny compared to the so called Pachanot..just my 2 cents.

[Gunter]

Looks allied to me, if not fully synonymous.

Pachanoi seems to hail from all over one large country, if you count the borders that existed a thousand years ago, or half a dozen countries if you count modern borders.

[M S Smith]

Here's other shots by different photographers of cacti in Cochabamba. I don't know the location of the first two, but the last three shots are from the Jardin Botanico Martin Cardenas. In the last two you can see stands of cactus which bear some similarity to the "pachanot," but which I can't tell whether or not they are the same plant as the first one from the Botanico (third photo in series).

~Michael~

Edited February 28, 2009 by M S Smith

[trucha]

I've largely reworked this from assorted conversations I've been having with Michael while we were waiting for permission to put them online.

Whether any of the features I am about to mention are important or not remains to be seen as really the descriptions for all of these are still waiting for enough info in order for their creation to happen.

These are just features I've found useful for sake of being consistent in general (up until this plant the tube,fruit and lack of tiny points on the petals have been fairly reliable for separating bridgesii from pachanoi - with pachanot falling into step with pachanoi on the last one only but this trait appears to be a dominate one in hybrids (so far anyway - with too few data points yet).

The body looks a lot like the pachanot outside of color and texture and something about the areoles I need to better define - all being a bit more towards something between a scopulicola and a bridgesii.

They are though darn close to the pachanot with some noteable exceptions:

Skin coloration and texture reminds me of several Bolivian plants, including scopulicola, at least when its grown with partial shading rather than a lot of sun, more than the pachanot which I have not yet seen to be as uniformly and impressively colored.

Hair coloration on ovary and tube are more grey to brown to black. Some white most certainly appears to be present but when I blow it up I am not certain that lighting angle, glare and dew might not be contributors. I would love to see these in person but am stoked to see this plant in photos and am for now I am going to assume that at least some of what appears white and grey may really be white and grey. I'd rather pursue it and be wrong than dismiss it and be wrong. Its also noteworthy that sometimes the pachanot does show grey hair on the fruit.

The areole size and areole topography seem a bit off for the pachanot but again I would want to see the plant in person as this is not really in good enough focus for decent enlargements of those features. I can't even get a good look at the spines presently outside of there being at least one on most visible areoles and clear suggestion of there being more than one. The sort of notched edge look it has though is strikingly similar to the pachanot.

Its got lots in common with both pachanot and pachanoi but in addition to the divergent points already mentioned there is some oddness on some sections of the columns worth noticing.

UNDER the areoles there is a weird short sloping down part that is more often seen on scopulicola and some bridgesii than on a pachanoi or pachanot although some of the fat pachanoids like the nearly spineless Hutchison collection at UCBBG (accession number 64.0762) shows the same on old columns.

These things totally lack the wrinkling (for want of a better word) and unique areoles of scopulicola. YET the seemingly reduced flower petal and stamen counts (I say seemingly as the photos permit only roughly comparing something under less than ideal focus not actually counting) seems more like scopulicola than pachanoi or pachanot. This sort of diminished count appearance also shows up in some Peruvian plants like the spiny San Pedro collected by Hutchison and present at UC under accession number 65.0715.

Pachanot also tends to have more of the inner series of stamens set much farther back into the throat than is apparent in these flowers. In the pachanot it is common for some of the the anthers to be present almost as far back into the throat as can be seen.

Sepals look more like what I would expect on scopulicola in terms of their color, shape and the extreme recurving.

Bridgesii and several other related trichs also like to express strongly recurving sepals but pachanot does not so far as what I have witnessed.

Petals are largely either lacking or else have only weakly acuminate points that are more towards what is typical on bridgesii and scop flowers than the more consistently present, more pronounced and longer tiny points common (if not ubiquitous?) on pachanoi and pachanot flower petals (and also a number of others such as peruvianus).

Obviously working from photos I could have errors in observation anywhere in the above.

That's all simply my initial impressions based on those images. Other people's mileage may vary.

For lack of anything better, I'm going to refer to this as a pachanoi for simple sake of not knowing what else to call it (and also not wanting to argue with anyone when I am utterly lacking in any facts about this plant other than where it is now growing) even though assorted elements of it actually remind me much more of bridgesii and scopulicola than either pachanoi or pachanot and other elements remind me more of pachanoi than pachanot while yet other elements remind me more of pachanot than pachanoi.

Based on those petals and being in Bolivia bridgesii seems logical and just as easy of a name to apply as pachanoi BUT I know next to nothing about it or where it came from.

I'd really like to know where this came from.  It sure looks like it likes its present home in that garden.

I'm curious what if any wild populations of these and scopulicola and riomizquiensis can be found. And if this is going to turn out to be riomizquiensis. People are certainly going to be looking this summer.

This could possibly prove to be a parent of the pachanot or there could be a population related to this that is where the pachanot actually came from. I have only a lot of questions and no answers.

While at the moment I don't think this is the pachanot, unless perhaps a parent or a related population, it sure indicates (yet again) that Bolivia seems like a great place to put some focus exploring around looking for more things like this one.

Some fun I've noticed in Hunt & company's Lexicon

spachianus is seemingly unresolvably muddled with its first description possibly not even being of a trichocereus.

scopulicola is possibly referred to bridgesii (lageniformis) and thought possibly to have been introduced

knuthianus is possibly referred to cuzcoensis

schoenii is lumped into cuzcoensis

tarmaensis is lumped into cuzcoensis

cuzcoensis is said to be "Possibly just a spiny precursor of E. pachanoi"

puquiensis which became a subspsecies under peruvianus in Hunt's CITES cactaceae checklist is lumped into cuzcoensis

peruvianus is said to possibly be a "southern form of pachanoi"

chalaensis is lumped into pachanoi

santaensis is lumped into pachanoi

riomizquiensis is rejected as invalid in the Lexicon although elsewhere (and more recently) in the consensus group's journal the name is preserved as a ssp in the pachanoi-complex

pachanoi itself is thought to be a cultivar of course.

[strangebrew]

Nah not PC, similar though. To my untrained eye - wrong profile, buds aren't hairy enough, sepals aren't red enough.

Cochabamaba looks like an interesting place to search but.

[Gunter]

I think that while there is divergence between pachanoi from Bolivia verses pachanoi from Peru and ecuador, that the stands involved once likely share a common ancestor and are the populations seem to be decendants of a common cultivated ancestor.

But then I find the major morphological differences like floral pigment traits and spine traits in San Pedro cacti to be far too superficial in significance to warrant a separation of species in plants with an extended cultivation history.

If different flowering times and traits and flower colors cannot differentiate vegetable forms of brassica species as different species due to cultivation history , then I hardly expect them to validate or warrant specific divisions in San Pedro.

[trucha]

Isn't it presently an assumption that Brassicas and Trichs will prove to be the same picture? Perhaps it will prove to be true, a lot suggests it may be true, but presently it is a working hypothesis that needs an actual evaluation.

The reason those Brassicas can't have species described based on differing flowers is they are not simply cultivars but are known to largely be a nest of grex making almost any flowers produced also of hybrid origin. Its true for any trich hybrids as well. Differing flowers can't be used for describing new species if they are known to be hybrids - its not the flowers that fail but rather it is simply the fact that the plant itself cannot not qualify for consideration as a species.

One significant difference between Brassica and Trichocereus is we already know where those Brassicas came from.

Maybe this will prove to be true for the trichs but as mentioned this is presently still an assumption awaiting some sort of proof that I am unaware has been offered or attempted by anyone.

We can tell that in earlier history pachanoi has been planted far and wide, bridgesii very locally, peruvianus even more limited & locally and cuzcoensis fairly extensively in the valleys around Cuzco. Most trichs don't show the impact of earlier human intervention.

Use of flowers as tools in defining species recognition is not at all limited to the Cactaceae. It really does work quite well outside of hybrids. Its less an issue of color of flower though since bud mutations can shift colors (and even petal shapes) on a single flower and not impact any other flower on the same plant whether prior to, concurrent with or following it. Sepal colors and shapes are far more useful than petal color.

Its also possible for other types of mutations to occur on flowers that have no meaning for any other flower, for instance pachanot sometimes forms epistillate flowers possessing only functional anthers.

Its actually the flowers that to me suggest that far fewer species exist in Trichocereus than are named not the body morphology. It is really mostly the flowers that suggest peruvianus is just a form of pachanoi and that bridgesii and bona fide pachanoi are close to each other.

Whether one wants to view these plants at a specific rank or subspecific, flowers and fruit are the most valuable tools accessible to any human possessing both eyes and flowers. Lack of the latter sadly leaves a lot of people unable to have access to adequate study materials.

As part of the trichocereus project at Trout's Notes it is my intention to post as many examples of different individual flowers from different mother plants for every sort of trich that I can locate. At some point this will reach enough critical mass to become useful for enabling public study.

Edited February 28, 2009 by trucha

[Gunter]

Isn't it presently an assumption that Brassicas and Trichs will prove to be the same picture?

Well Brassicas have not been cultivated as long as Trichocereus, so we'd expect a bit more variation in the latter. Much like Opuntia. Have you ever spoken with or emailed an Andean ethnologist or archaeologist about the agricultural technology of these precolumbian Andean people? I have to some extent, I was told that the details are missing but the skills and know how are clearly there in regard to numerous plants. Brugmansia history relates to this too.

its not the flowers that fail but rather it is simply the fact that the plant itself cannot not qualify for consideration as a species.

Yes a history of cultivation and or selection undermines floral trait value in countless plants.

Are you sure we know where brassicas come from? I think we just assume we do. How do we know our sources of information are valid? Because they aren't dark skinned natives from South America? I think there is some unintended racial conflict in what counts as proof as how we know something. Dark skinned half naked natives obviously don't count when they relate things, but when the white devil figures the exact same thing out in his lab then it become real and proven.

I am not implicating you in this KT, just saying that is the way that some of this ethnobotany appears to me. In my study of Indian oral tradition (Veda) I found that some oral traditions hardly change at all, it is pretty neat why. (it has to do with the lack of a written record!)

We can tell that in earlier history pachanoi has been planted far and wide,

Are you aware of The Incas and their Ancestors, The Archaeology of Peru Michael Moseley? In this book there is a claim of fruits of T peruvianus being found in a seed cache(in a cave) with rocoto peppers and lima beans dating something like 8-10K. I would offer this is the earliest indication I have found of probable cultivation and certainly a familiarity with the plant. This was in northern peru.

In researching the traditions, archaeology and history of the area, topics which seldom mention cacti I should mention, several competing regional developmental hypothesis or scenarios emerge. Among these is a migration from the Tiwanako area to the area of Northern Peru by people adept at masonry and in possession of agricultural skills. Among other aspects the geological history of the area suggests that the diversity of cacti was largely shaped in the same region by isolation due to geological activity. This activity may have been a contributing factor in the migrations that occurred in the region long ago.

Over time many migration events seem to have occurred and thus obscure much of the picture yet eventually over several thousand years there came to be countless tribes and several cultural populations with common ancestry but different languages and somewhat divergent in other technologies as well. In at least one of these cultures knowledge of masonry and waterworks developed to a tremendous degree. We enjoy some of the vegetative results of their efforts including the potato.

The potato, among other andean crops, provides insight into andean cultivation methods which were not much like western methods. One method was to cultivate tremendous diversity adjacent to each other to facilitate selections for both human will and in terms of nature and survival. The uniformity present in the Andean crops that have been introduced to western agriculture is a product of western agriculture to a large degree and not part of the traditional agricultural methods of andean regions.

This pertains to what counts as the impact of human selection in andean plants with a cultivation history. Much of the time what appears feral to westerners is cultivated, In ethnobotany evolution of a discipline (Shultes et al) an article mentions plants that were thought to be feral in swidden plots, that were seemingly abandoned in favor of new plots, were studied and found to be all considered resources by intention, their occurrence in conjunction with a seemingly former site was deliberately exploited. This type of exploitation involves often subtle types of selection.

Many of these plants occur adjacent to areas of ancient habitation, in association with areas of ritual use of these plants, in associations with roadways and canal works across the empire of the inca, as well as in areas that are little explored. It has been my thought for some time that it might be the case that the MRCE (most recent common ancestor) of the San Pedro group was a cultivated plant from the tiwanako region and accompanied the migration of the people to Northern Coastal Peru, or vice versa.

I need to ask at this point what your criteria for human intervention is?

In mexico people might use a plant like Salvia d. and exploit it even by planting it in different locations where it will grow on its own without human care. This results in uniform stands, are there any uniform andean populations in the San Pedro species?

Sometimes cultivation is more deliberate and involved, single stands are uniform and much less likely to give rise to more desirable forms, as well as much less likely to survive pathogenic attack than are diverse stands. I was told that we can have little doubt that the Andean people knew how to propagate plants both sexually and asexually. The former via traditional Andean methods results in varied populations, while the latter via traditional Andean methods results in uniform populations, (IE the populations either come from seed or clone or both)

Thus signs of human involvement in these cacti would entail some uniform populations and some diverse populations, and developed preferences and terminology which do not exist to the same extent for non-cultivated and or non-exploited species.

If we have a diverse population that becomes abandoned it tends to move towards uniformity over time due to selection and over generations. If we have a uniform population then over time it will in it's isolated development come to be unique in terms of phenotypes present.

When I apply this to these cacti it becomes even more clear how unclear the picture will ever be.

I start looking at the synapomorphic traits for to examine the possibilities of monophyly.

We can't use any single trait (like flowers) on its own for this, but groups and ranges of expression of them are often very useful. Consider that if the plant has on average (known exceptions are exceptional for all ranges) 6-8 ribs (+/- 2), has large white night blooming flowers with hairy floral stocks, grows on average 3-5 inches thick (+/-2)(sorry... too lazy to put this into the more intelligent metric system) and contains PEA alkaloids tending to have mescaline as the predominant alkaloid, then the plant is San Pedro. It might grow upright, at an angle or creep on the ground, it might have long spines or short spines or no spines, it might have symmetrical spine arrangements with clear centrals and radials or seemingly random spine placement. The flower size and tint along with the floral hair pigment and presence will vary to some degree. Spine color and areole color, size and distance will vary to some degree. It may have a grey blue glaucous coating, it may not. It varies sure but what varies is still pretty uniform.

If you take one of the plants fitting this description and cross it with another that meets the description you get a plant that meets this description. If you take one of the plants fitting this description and cross it with a plant that doesn't meet this description, ergo cross a San Pedro with a non pedro, then you will get a plant that does not meet this description and is not a Pedro. This is the base of my assertion of monophyly and in concert with documented cultivation history and association with the range of an ancient empire and various peoples I believe the analogy of the brassicas, and of the canines is fairly apt.

Use of flowers as tools in defining species recognition is not at all limited to the Cactaceae.

I believe that A: by themselves the flowers aren't significant enough to draw from.

And: B they are like seed morphology as a taxonomic tool if we use them by themselves.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Archaea

[trucha]

I won't argue with a lot of that but I might suggest that the only people who would suggest that flowers are not of immense value in studying the trichocereus or place them on equal standing with simple sterile morphology are going to be limited to those same set of people who have not spent much if any time actually studying the Trichocereus flowers firsthand.

A lot of flowers for each sort needs to be examined (and ideally be dissected) though not just a look at a single flower of each.

LOTS of the trichs have their fruit harvested that are not at all cultivated. (True also of other cactus species in other countries.)

Many indigenous people entirely rely on local plants in the wild. Cultivation of cacti seems most common when immediately local resources are inadequate or not available. Even then it is just as common for people to have annual collection trips as part of their cultural activities.

Cactus fruit in a food cache can't serve as evidence of cultivation anymore than finding peyote in a rock shelter also containing beans or corn indicates that peyote was cultivated.

The extensive plantings of cuzcoensis on the other hand does suggest it was cultivated for fruit and maybe more purposes. Its still a popular hair rinse although all evidence of its harvesting that has thusfar been located by friends has been of the "landrape" type approaches with no indication of modern replanting at all. The abundance of the plants probably underlies this?

Peruvianus seems to be harvested primarily from wild plants, the populations which exist are extensive and numerous so it is most likely there has never been need for cultivation. This is still ongoing today in a major way. Planting is minor and quite haphazard. It generally seems no more involved as someone getting a branch out of a pathway, tossing it to the side wherever it fell and it rooting where it landed.

And I too have discussed this with both Peruvians and Westerners studying food crops and ancient agriculture in Peru.

There is surprisingly little apparent modern cultivation of the trichocereus species in Peru outside of ornamentals. Part of that is due to one single plant being capable of producing a lot of biomass and fruit, these plants having a very rapid rate of growth and a lot of plants being in the ground from one end of the country to the other.

Despite that pachanoi for witches markets often travels a good distance rather than being locally sourced. Sort of like pituri once was in Oz (maybe this is still true?), the people employing it clearly understand that not all occurrences are equivalent and prefer plant material sourced from specific areas and populations.

Its not about skin color of information sources that any of this is based on. Some of the Brassicas we know a lot about, others we do not. Much of that depends entirely on when they entered cultivation and what sort of records exist. Some of what we regard as Brassica species may or may not be species.

Brassicas also experienced a lot of quite deliberate manipulation and selection for divergent forms. Probably because they are so amenable to it.

Its a mistake to lump lighter skinned people's together as if they are one. Lots of lighter skinned peoples have just as much hatred and prejudice between them as between any more perceptibly different race or cultural group.

Any shade of difference in not just skin color but speech or dress or religion or even lifestyle appears to be all it takes for some people to hate people they might not have ever actually met.

Its just as common, perhaps more common, to hear Italian or Russian research dismissed by bigots in the sciences as it is to hear Mexican or Peruvian research being dismissed by bigots.

Even here in the US there has been intense discrimination between different nationalities not just races. Lots of people are aware Japanese Americans were herded into camps during WWII but fewer are aware that when the US was at war with Germany it was a crime to speak German in public and it was an imprisonable offense for anyone to teach the German language.

I have a number of Germans in my ancestry (some of whom lived through that period in towns comprised of nearly 100% German-origin people including a number of older ones who did not speak ANY English), also English, Danish, Dutch, Scottish, Welsh, Blackfoot and another Native American tribe that some of my ancestors almost managed to completely purge from our family history by inventing a fictitious relative. If America is some perceived melting pot of nationalities I fit that description of an American.

I too have long suspected that a lot of hybridization has occurred in South America (I think I've been claiming that in bound printed matter since at least 1997 and have been referring to them as probable grex similar to what we see in Brassica for as long?).

However, this is just a logical working hypothesis not proven fact at this point. The assumption of many lineages being involved with the origin of some of these may in fact prove to be true but some nature of testable proofs should be created rather than insisting our opinions are facts in advance of not just proof but testing.

I would like to see that proof personally but lack it at the moment.

When in school I was given a work/study research project of determining how a specific ant biosynthesized formic acid spray. We had a great assay and the benefit of the enzymes we believed to be involved having been fully sequenced and their locations of their coding in the genome also established and the sequences elucidated. I was sprayed with formic acid a number of times during the handling of those ants so fully believed they contained formic acid.

I will never forget my proposal for how to create the research project being met with the comments 'That's all well and good but I don't see anywhere here where you have proven your ants actually contain formic acid. Where is the basis for you beginning this line of study?" The person asking this was the same person who assigned me the project.

Being called on supplanting the need for proof with my blind acceptance of what I believed to be true is among the most valuable things of my education. No prior work by others, not even my subjective experience of smelling and feeling formic acid aerosol ant spray hitting my skin could serve in lieu of actual evaluation and proof.

I am suggesting this is a similar picture. You may be right but some sort of real world evaluation is still needed.

I would suggest presence or absence of mescaline may not be a good determinant. It seems rather arbitrary to cut cuzcoensis out of the San Pedro picture and retain puquiensis.

Besides would that not mean vollianus would have to fall into in pachanoi?

The morphological ranges you give also cuts out a number of known stands of pachanoi and peruvianus that can reach 8-10 inches (or sometimes more) on the bases of some old plants and can have up to 14 ribs. Maybe even higher values will be witnessed somewhere by someone?

[Gunter]

The ranges are approximate.

Cactus fruit in a food cache can't serve as evidence of cultivation anymore than finding peyote in a rock shelter also containing beans or corn indicates that peyote was cultivated.

I disagree. It would be like finding peyote fruits or seeds in quantity with seeds of known cultivated plants and then thinking that the peyote seed was for propagation. Likewise myth exists in the area that floods were survived by putting seeds and animals and people in caves, the seeds were for propagation after the event.

A glance at the large stands of the pachanoi you mention is informative enough.

I have only had 1 trichocereus flower in my presence, thus i have not compared flowers that way. I have however spent considerable time comparing floral photos. I think for example that bob schick's write up on echinopsis is laughable in floral terms. I did not however dismiss floral traits, I just mentioned that this is not enough on its own.

It reminds me of the unknown mimosa that has pink ball flowers that is a source of jurema. I have grown out seeds of plants that were at the plantation and seen the resulting flowers and other traits. It is not mimosa verrucosa and aside from the seed and stem traits that are at odds with verrucosa there is the fact that verrucosa has spike flowers and the unidentified mimosa has ball flowers. I do use floral morphology and was trained to use the old school floral formulas for identification purposes, I say old school because genetic studies show that many divisions made upon the basis of floral morphology were proven to be close but not quite right. A taxonomist i know is moving away from relying upon floral data to rely upon molecular data as well.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Archaea

[Teotzlcoatl]

Wow thanks for posting!

Very interesting!

[trucha]

I've learned a lot about how to take photos of flowers in the last two years. Photos are most often horrible tools for flower features. A lot of things are not apparent until they are either done as multiple closeups or else spread open.

Bob Schick gave a lot of great pointers on how to capture features that have meaning. Its worth reading his take on the genus Echinopsis (posted at the Cactus_etc archives) as he shows how easily the major divisions can be delineated using their flowers and seeds. He puts them all at the subgeneric rank so as not to butt heads with the powers that be but it might be noted they too divide it up into subgeneric ranks.)

It is my intention to create an online tool capable of use for this, in the form of a flower detail archive. One of the most important elements is to have enough photos of the assorted different features of value with this repeated for multiple flowers on multiple individuals.

We can disagree and I have no trouble with that but it will be interesting to see what is thought once the floral sets are in place and something detailed can be examined for a meaningful assessment of the merits of this line of investigation. A glance at photos and limited flower exposure is not a great foundation for drawing conclusions about its value or lack thereof.

For anyone curious in exploring this area (or assisting in creation of the tool mentioned above) in the future I would suggest the following images be done for any flower permitting it (sometimes its just not possible to physically get every shot but whatever can happen is always more valuable than nothing happening)

Its nice to have images of the plant showing how the flowers are presented and where it can produce them.

Also:

A side view of the entire flower

An oblique view of the side of the flower showing the stigma lobes and anthers

A shot right down the throat showing both sets of stamens with the opening of the flower as centered and perpendicular to the plane of the image as possible.

A few shots of interior flower parts from different angles in case something needs clarifying in the previous photo.

A close up of the entire ovary and a closer view of its surface

Another of the tube with a closer view of the scales and hairs

Another of the transition into the flower

Another of both surfaces of the sepals

A closeup illustrating degree of or lack of recurving of sepals.

A closeup of a few different petal tips.

A closeup into the throat

A closeup of several different arrays of stigma lobes

Ideally a series should be take at night when the flowers open and again in the morning.

Lots better details come out in daylight but nighttime and early morning visitors take their toll and its common to find the pistil no longer borne proud and the anthers stripped bare.

If a dissection can be done showing the nectar chamber and ovary interior is great.

Also laying out the series of petals and sepals to seen their count and shapes and sizes can be helpful but this is an area where much variation will be found.

Edited March 1, 2009 by trucha

[M S Smith]

A new find of a plant in Cochabamba, Bolivia.

~Michael~