PC/pachanot as heterozygous

[Gunter]

This is something that has been considered a great deal by several people with the chance to observe this plant and the offspring it produces, as well as the offspring of other plants in general

I believe the PC clone, aka Pachanot, to be an F1 hybrid, and likely to be a cross between a pachanoi and a cuzcoensis type

the case for this is as follows,

1 the PC clone displays a great deal of vigor, more so than is average for plants in this group (SP) group, this is common with F1 crosses

2 The PC clone never seems to have uniform F1 offspring in crosses between it and other forms and species, however crosses between other forms and species in F1 tend to be rather uniform

2a offspring of the PC clone and short spined forms seem to show an f2 type assortment in regard to spine traits (TJG X PC), as well as floral traits (andalgalensis X PC), this seems to indicate that it contains a heterozygous combination of alleles for these traits, it seems that it contains an allele for short spines and an allele for long spines and that the short spine allele is dominant

3 the alkaloid content and composure of the PC clone is rather low for a pachanoi type.

3a the PC is extremely bitter, but is known to be about half as strong as the average clone of pachanoi, hypothetically speaking it seems likely that this could represent it being a cross between an active and an inactive form, with a result intermediate between the parents

4 the trait of the floral hair color is unusual for the San Pedro group, it is lighter than average for pachanoi, but some cuzcoensis plants (not all) seem to have a lighter color very similar to this

in some specific crosses with it and other plants, some very pronounced V shaped lines and somewhat knuthianus/cuzcoensis like growth occur, likewise it tend to be a bit narrower than typical pachanoi and closer in diameter to the cuzcoensis plants

http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/pedro/pedro_hybrids.html

in the above link once can see how the crosses between it generate a range of traits, including traits that suggest the cuzcoensis type phenotype

the traits of the offspring seem to represent that the PC clone is heterozygous for a large number of traits, making it seem to be F1, as opposed to being homozygous for some traits and heterozygous for others, there is such a wide range of diversity in the F1 crosses made with this plant that it does not seem to represent a population, but seems to be a hybrid, in addition to this it tends to display a greater degree of cold tolerance than is typical for pachanoi forms

in terms of alleles and offspring i would characterize it as M+M- in my own categorization of theoretical alleles

i would expect that when crossed with a normal pachanoi or peruvianus(M+M+) it would produce:

M+M+ : M+M- 3:1

when crosses with inactives (M-M- cuzco type) i'd expect the opposite

M-M- : M+M- 3:1

and in outcrosses with other species (M*M*) I'd expect

M*M+ : M*M- 1:1

[PD.]

Good work as usual Archaea!

1. I see it no more vigorous than many of the SP group, kk339 for one example shows similar if not more vigour in general growth and setting of offshoots ime.

2. I see variation in f1 offspring in many crosses to roughly the same percentage as pc. Of course some crosses are more uniform than others but i dont think the variations are specific to pc hybrids alone, many plants used in crosses are likely f1 themselves. One can only speculate on such matters.

3. Is wildly variable!

4. The floral hair of pc is not unlike that of some bridgesii also. That said, here in Au i have seen very dark to almost straight white on the pc clone (more often the former), that is if the drak haired and light haired ARE the same clone and not different hybrids produced here in Au. Although pollinations trials would prove they be of the same clone due to failure for every pollination attempt. Floral hair seems variable and not a good indicator for identification althought the variation in floral hair to me would suggest a hybrid of sorts, once again pure speculation. On trouts pages the following - "Strybig" has light coloured hair, "UC Peru 64.0762" has light coloured hair and peruvianus "Huancabamba" displays light hair all similar to the lighter coloured hair im used to seeing on the pc clone. I must also say that the colour of the floral hair displayed by the "pachaNOT" in trouts pages is far more white than i am accustomed to seeing here in Au, FAR more white!

The "pachaNOT" in a collection here in Au was said to be wild collected from Sth America just prior to 1920 or thereabouts. The region it was collected from escapes me atm but this information isnt hard to get. Still, being wild collected is the only information, no idication if it were from a single plant or stabilised population in a certain region. So it sheds no light on lineage.

Assumption holding hands with speculation skipping through the field of Trichocereus. When is a geneticist going to put us all out of our misery

[bℓσωηG]

Assumption holding hands with speculation skipping through the field of Trichocereus. When is a geneticist going to put us all out of our misery

AWW how romantic lol.

Thanks Archaea for you most interesting posts , i read or rather try to decipher them all, as they are relevant to my interests even though the content can seem to me to be way over my head, cheers

[Gunter]

i wonder if tha pachanot there is Oz is the same as the pachanot here, I think it may be different material given what you have shared

KK339 may be F1 given Knizes garden and methods, this is in regard to seed, very few people feel that Knize seed can be trusted the way you imply it can be.

the vigor of the US pachanot in side by side comparisons to other forms is well known here, only F1 hybrids seem to rival it here

with crosses of pure forms (cuttings from wild populations like fat blues and bridgesii) i've seen far more uniform ratios than with the PC clone

here in the US the PC clone never seems to exceed a certain alkaloid content and there has emerged a rather clear average for well cared for materials

The "pachaNOT" in a collection here in Au was said to be wild collected from Sth America just prior to 1920 or thereabouts. The region it was collected from escapes me atm but this information isnt hard to get.

there are a lot of people who have been after that information for over two decades

please do tell

Edited February 17, 2011 by Archaea

[M S Smith]

I'd love to see the offspring from an intentional cross of the proper T. pachanoi known throughout the Andes and T. cuzcoensis. This armchair observer definitely has difficulty in seeing any of the offspring developing to be like the "pachanot."

As for the photos in the link to Trout's stuff...regarding the first, the "pachanot x T. peruvianus", I would have taken the T. peruvianus part to have been T. cuzcoensis. Knowing that T. cuzcoensis has long been mistaken as T. peruvianus I wonder if this is at all possible.

Regarding the second, the "pachanot x Juul's", the offspring only seem to confirm my belief that the "pachanot" is closest in relation to T. bridgesii.

~Michael~

[incognito]

fucking hell isnt their like 100's if no 1000's of geneticly diverse seed grown and cultivars of "t.pachanoi" in australia?

i just keep thinking all ur doing is referring to your own collection, which we all do.

gawd id have 20 different looking 'pachanoi' all grown from the same seed batch,

this scrambled backyard cacti nomenclature does mey head in

mines that pc pachanot super pedro mega cacti from the hills of babylon no mine is no barrys is in this picture here see? no mine is rawwwwk!

talking cacti is like some b grade rap thats full of half-truths and imagination.

id love to see the cacti n their natural habitat, would be awesome, but or now have an assortment of mysterious aussie clones of above rap tune.

and their awesome this legislation is bullshit. has not worked on other prohibited plants thats for sure.

waste of tax payers dollars.

Edited February 17, 2011 by incognito

[PD.]

fucking hell isnt their like 100's if no 1000's of geneticly diverse seed grown and cultivars of "t.pachanoi" in australia?

i just keep thinking all ur doing is referring to your own collection, which we all do.

I think its pretty obvious considering he (Archaea) actually states he is refering to the pachanoi PC incog. Have you been drinking tonite

[Gunter]

http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/pedro/pedro_hybrids.html

the GF peruvianus clone (the peruvianus in the hybrid of the link above)

doesn't look like a cuzcoensis to me at all, it has a smoother profile, is far wider (6 inches/15cm) and has a very different spine trait, including no significant swelling at the spine bases, a different count of spines etc

that and it is known to be very strongly active

however the count of spines of a pachanot, and their arrangement, is similar to cuzcoensis material, while the spines of typical pachanoi tend to be fewer in number and have a different arrangement, as can be seen in photographs of plants in habitat

this is a very important trait to me, the spine number and arrangement for the pachanot seem inconsistent with pachanoi, peruvianus and bridgesii, which all resemble eachother for the most part with the exception of the length of the spines, (as noted by B&R who described bridgesii as very similar to peruvianus) however the pachanot has an arrangement similar to the cuzco material.

as for the spines in the juuls cross, juuls is a pachanoi

and here are some other pachanoi from ecuador:

http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/pedro/pachanoi_Quito.html

http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/pedro/pachanoi_Ecuador.html

http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/pedro/pachanoi_Vilcabamba.html

the above have spines not that dissimilar to bridgesii

but i believe that bridgesii is a stable population derived from pachanoi itself, or the reverse

here are some pachanoi from peru:

http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/pedro/pachanoi_peru.html

and in bolivia:

http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/pedro/Cochabamba_Dani.html

as for T pachanoi, Trout in SP page 83 mentions:

Ostolaza 1984 interestingly was only able to observe 1-4 spines during his studies of Peruvian material

here is a peruvian cuzco form:

http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/Huancayo.html

and some peruvianus:

http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/peruvian_cacti/pages/PeruCacti_3_a.html

http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/peruvian_cacti/pages/PeruCacti_3_c.html

http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/peruvian_cacti/pages/PeruCacti_8_a.html

also to quote KT:

a) It does not match the description of pachanoi as given by Rose & others in perhaps minor but very consistent ways.

It is readily differentiable from the pachanoi that seems to be most common in Ecuador and Peru.

c) Thus far it has NOT been encountered in the wild or in use among Peruvian shamans.

d) It shows characteristics of flower and fruit, as well as intensely vigorous growth, that are suggestive of it being a selection derived from a hybrid...

The pachanot is much faster growing, more cold tolerant, more rot resistant and more water tolerant than a bona fide Trichocereus pachanoi.

If anyone has more information concerning this plant's origin, especially if you have facts to the contrary and/or if you can tell us its precise point of entry into US horticulture, please contact us at:

here is a thread with photographs that compare the pachanot to the riomizquensis, please look at the spine traits of both of them, i feel they are distinct, i will look into getting a better presentation of the spine traits of the pachanot verses typical pachanoi and verses cuzco allies material as well as peruvianus

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20591

i believe that the pachanot may be a hybrid involving t. knuthianus and a pachanoid, as opposed to cuzcoensis

form, though i do believe that the knuthianus and the cuzcoensis are similar in some ways:

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=19501

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=15862

in fact the spine count of the pachanot and the arrangement is nearly identical to some forms said to be knuthianus, and the semi-knobby growth of the pachanot is reminiscent as well

the SS03 is an excellent example of what i believe to be a parent of the pachanot

Edited February 17, 2011 by Archaea

[Pacha]

Interesting read you guys! Archaea and Michael, I admire your research in the Trich world, I learned so much just by reading your articles. Thank you!

I posted it before but I think this thread is a good one to upload it again. A friend of mine owns this trich which looks somewhat PC - somewhat bridgesii, maybe it's the missing link in the PC puzzle...

[Gunter]

i strongly doubt that the PC cultivar has any bridgesii genes in it

[PD.]

i strongly doubt that the PC cultivar has any bridgesii genes in it

Why do you dismiss it so strongly?

[incognito]

[occidentalis]

After growing cacti and marvelling at the diversity in Trichocereus

and trying to put names to the things in my collection and the things I see in other peoples'

The funny thing I noticed when I was in the Andes was the remarkable similarity of the plants in the environment

and the ubiquity and consistency of single forms across large regions

I really think most of these unique and weird entities we argue about are just products of hybridisation in horticulture, or else artefacts of biased collecting of very unusual specimens in the wild.

Go to South America, spend some time looking at cacti from Chile to Ecuador and in several parts of Peru as I did. It wasn't a scientific survey by any means and I rarely got my hand lens out. But the overwhelming feeling I got from it is that all this intellectualisation is just that

These cacti are just like any other plants in their natural environment, they may co-occur with sympatric congeners every now and then but largely not

And I rarely had any uncertainty as to which 'species' they belonged to.

The only exception to this would be the weird bridgesii/peruvianus things growing at Copacabana which were discussed in a recent thread, I really couldn't figure those guys out.

[Gunter]

Why do you dismiss it so strongly?

 

nothing in it says bridgesii to me, nothing in it's hybrid offspring says bridgesii to me

I really think most of these unique and weird entities we argue about are just products of hybridisation in horticulture, or else artefacts of biased collecting of very unusual specimens in the wild.

 

I agree.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Archaea

[incognito]

pd- when i take some pics i will b able to explain better,

i think i would have at least 3 or 4 dfferent pachs that if i posted a pic could get called pc.

but they are not. ive grown them from seed. that means they have their ownunique genetics right?

i think identifying the mystical pc would indeed require a genetisist like occ said.

[PD.]

When is a geneticist going to put us all out of our misery

[PD.]

Although i must say incog, it is fairly easy to distinguish the old clone of pach, the same old material from huge old mothers in all diff areas of Au. If these were genetically different then the attemps at pollination would have produced fruit no? I was positive at one point i had a different form from the usual clone due to its growth habits but i have tried at least 3 different times to cross the 2 "forms" (both ways) with no success which leads me to believe they are the same clone, an old clone that has made its way around Au in a big way. Fuck, there are huge ones, massive old things all over the place but i suppose you will just say that due to the fact i havent tried to cross them all i wouldnt have a clue right?

Your shit stirrin me you dont know the clone in question.

[Gunter]

genetics work is being done, albeit slowly, some answers and many more questions are doubtlessly on the way

[mutant]

Very interesting threads you opened up Archaea, cool

I agree with PD in that PC do not show some special vigor compared to other species/clones

and I disagree with him that the PC is variable [from the pics I have seen]

Archaea, could the Juul's Giant have some scop in them, what do you say?

Also, what do you think about that plant in Pacha's photo? What is it?

I have to admit your arguements sound more or less right, but my phenotypical instict says otherwise: like Michael said, I am having a hard time believing that a true Cuzco and a true pachanoi could result in the PC. Moreover, this is oversimplifying as it implies we can have access to some 'true' this or 'true' that, but this is probably not the case, so how can we make these raw assumptions about f1 and f2 of cacti we suspect they themselves are hybrids?

Pacha, you did well to show up with this photo mate I am surprised Archaea didn't comment. I wonder what Smith would have to say about this specimen. I will try to find a photo of a similar one a friend has.

Archaea, what do you think about that plant in Pacha's photo?

occidentalis>>

I don't really think one has to go to habitat to realise those things you said [that the species are and have interbred, so it's better start looking at them as if they're all hybrids.]

People's passion [and belief, yeah belief!] creates wishful thinking and strongly opinions and oftentimes it beats any logical consensus, despite the above statement is by no means some secret knowledge. I really don't see any intellectualization in here, I don't know whether Archaea's thoughts are according to genetic science, but all I see is some people really passionate about their cactus hobby.

I love to talk phenotypes, ID and the like, not only for Tricho and not only cacti for that matter. I just love it. Dunno why.

It's just people, people like 'purity', people like 'the original', the 'true' species etc, so they love the concept of an original peruvianus ["true blue"] and the like. It's, kind of, like wanting to pay a fortune for a collectors vinyl, 'cause it's the real deal' : because of the cult status. The great difference is that the first edition of the vinyl does exist, but we don't know and probably cannot know about the cactus first version.

I see this even in myself, even in a joke mode : I am picking at a friend with a PC telling him that his pedro is not the original one, but mine [kk339] is, lulz! [

But it's cool if the DNA tests tell us [which they will] which species/phenotype are more ancient. This, f.e. I find far more interesting. Archaea, why do you regard the TER/VAL group as the older?

It goes beyond my apprehension, though, how someone with interest in cultivation and cacti [notably the same person that tuned me in by sending me my first san pedro starting my 3 year cactu wonderings] would underestimate such a discussion - or was PD right and you were drinking?

i think i would have at least 3 or 4 dfferent pachs that if i posted a pic could get called pc.

Wishful thinking! lets see them! I argue I will find them. Plus, if they look like a PC, they probably are!

till then, how do you think people will score if I post photos of Ozzie named clones? Will they find them? Will they distinguish Lance/cordobensis from Rob? Will they distinguish Alf from Omar ? Probably not, as I am not really sure they are different. But if you're talking PC, that's easy.

Peace and lots of cacti discussions!!!

[Gunter]

juuls seems to be a standard pachanoi, a true pachanoi and not an uncommon form, i strongly doubt that it has scop genes in it from what i have seen of it and it's crosses and scop and it's crosses

the one in the pacha picture, i do not have enough information in the picture to be able to form an opinion other than it is a trichocereus

as far as PC, i believe that it is heterozygous for spine alleles and that it has a gene for short spines and a gene for long spines and that the arrangement of the spines strongly suggests the cuzco and knuthianus type plants

in crosses with it and other plants i have seen it pass on the spine shortening gene, resulting in a percentage of the plants having spines much like the other parent but shorter, but the arrangement and count of the spines of the PC is not much like most pachanoi, or bridgesii, but does remind me of the cuzco form, likewise it lacks the skin texture of bridgesii, but is not unlike the cuzco, and likewise it does not grow as wide as pachanoi tends to, but is thinner like the cuzco, i could be wrong, but my belief is that it is a hybrid involving a pachanoi and a long spine, upright, narrower trichocereus that tends to have a 1-2 longer central spines and 5-7 shorter radial spines

[mutant]

the arrangement of spines in pc does remind the arrangement of spines of equally-spine-numbered cuzco, I sat and noticed them , I give you that