Echinopsis schoenii

[Micromegas]

Howdy... while in Peru I found a great book by Carlos Ostolaza Nano, "101 Cactus del Peru", published I believe in 2010. In it, it has both Echinopsis pachanoi and E. peruvianus. The difference between them is... "se diferencia de E. pachanoi (San Pedro) en tener fuertes espinas u ser mas alucinogeno". I have written the spanish for authenticity and it would appear to say the difference between pachanoi and peruvianus is that peruvianus has stronger/longer spines. The distribution of E. pachanoi is decidely more northern than peruvianus and if indeed shorter spines is due to selective breeding for ritual use, the north of Peru is where you would be more likely to see this phenomenon.

Of further interest, the book includes a thrid (and final) columnar echinopsis - E. schoenii. I had never heard of this species prior to picking up the book. Apparently it is named after E. Schon, of Germany. This plant has a distribution around Arequipa at an elevation of 3,300m, decidely higher than the 2000-3000m elevation given for the other species. It has spines up to 7cm, much longer than specified for peruvianus (4cm) and pachanoi (1cm). When I was in and around Arequipa, I noticed great variation in the plants I saw there, but assigned them in my mind to be in the peruvianus complex (there were no wild cacti in the south of peru with short spines that I encountered), but this schoenii may be amoung them. That being said, however, variety between cacti growing in the same landscape was the rule rather than the exception.

Its a lovely book, straight off the press, 200 pages with hundreds of large colour photographs.

EDITED BY MODERATOR! NO DISCUSSION ABOUT POTENCY PLEASE!

Edited November 23, 2011 by Evil Genius

[CβL]

Does the book mention anything about macrogonus? The definition of peruvianus 'with spines up to 4cm' would exclude many peruvianus and almost all macrogonus.

[Micromegas]

Nope the only echinopsis in the book are the three mentioned in my first post. I imagine the author would be aware of other varieties but it is interesting they are excluded while the schoenii has its own entry. Is that because it is considered more of a "true species" by the author or by cactophiles in Peru, than cuzco and macro or some other reason?

[CβL]

Well the fact it's a "101 of ..." book means he necessarily had to skip stuff. I would guess that it's unlikely to have escaped the clutches of seed/cutting collectors and is probably floating around as a peruvianus/macrogonus. I don't think taxonomists bother to check photos of cultivated plants before going ahead (not that it would change anything). ;P

But if anyone can find some photos, I'd be very interested to see what it looks like. Maybe it's an intermediate between the peruvianus plants and the taq/werd group.

Edit:

cactiguide has it as a synonym of Echinopsis cuzcoensis: http://cactiguide.com/cactus/?genus=Echinopsis&species=schoenii

Don't know how accurate that is.

Here's apparently a photo of the flower: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_se0gDfdm3vY/TCib5lAe4OI/AAAAAAAAAmE/GnitLSic-R4/s1600/Echinopsis+schoenii+flower.jpg

Edited November 23, 2011 by βluntmuffin

[ferret]

after a quick search looks like some people regard it as synonym of cuzcoensis

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27525&view=findpost&p=298708

although the numbers in this pdf by trout would indicate it could be more "useful" than the common cuzcos

http://www.troutsnotes.com/WVC.pdf

[CβL]

Well if you check on page 41 of that WVC .pdf, there's an awesome picture of T. schoenii.

To my eye, it looks to be a peruvianus/cuzcoensis hybrid. The spines seem to (it's a black and white photo) be mostly of uniform darkness with <= 8 spines/areole, and the plant appears quite fat, while the areoles are also rather giant. Those traits are not common with cuzcoensis from what I've seen, so I would argue it's a distinct plant in its own right, a subspecies or variety.

Secondly the "numbers" are again persuasive evidence of it being separate from cuzcoensis, being under those of peruvianus and above those of more archetypal cuzcoensis (What you would expect from a peruvianus and a cuzcoensis hybrid?).

[Gunter]

i agree that T. schoenii = a cuzcoensis type form

most of the armchair experts (myself included) would not even be able tell the two apart or even be able to reliably and consistently tell them apart from many other closely related plants like T. tarmaensis and T. puquiensis.

[tripsis]

What's to say plants like T. tarmaensis and T. puquiensis are even separate species?

[M S Smith]

Gunter, I could tell T. tarmaensis, T. cuzcoensis, and T. schoenii apart in a minute. T. puquiensis would throw me off a bit, but only because it leans more towards the T. schoenii in growth habit than towards T. cuzcoensis.

tripis, that all depends on how you define "species," but I am less worried about that than simply having names that allow us to have some sort of common discussion.

The majority of plants in and around Chivay and the greater Colca Canyon region are T. schoenii from what I have gathered and there are a ton of shots of the species in the "Arequipa and Cañón del Colca region" directory of the 1.2gb "Trichocereus of South America" torrent file. (I'll seed for a bit.)

Here's a nice shot...

There is a bit of variation among these plants, just like with T. peruvianus, so you will see some variability in spine length. I suspect it bears a closer relationship to T. cuzcoensis than to T. peruvianus, though looking a lot like the latter, but T. schoenii is clearly closer geographically. I suspected as much in regards to alkaloid composition.

Here's a couple more pictures...

~Michael~

Edited November 23, 2011 by M S Smith

[zelly]

The majority of plants in and around Chivay and the greater Colca Canyon region are T. schoenii from what I have gathered and there are a ton of shots of the species in the "Arequipa and Cañón del Colca region" directory of the 1.2gb "Trichocereus of South America" torrent file.

The problem with the torrent file, at least the 10/28/2009 version I have is that very few of the pictures are identified as to species, leaving them open to interpretation or opinion as to what they may truly be.

Example: Identified only as Peru Cañon del Colca 21.jpg,

or Peru Dept Arequipa Chivay 010.jpg

I'm curious what your source of 'gathering' is.

[M S Smith]

The problem with the torrent file, at least the 10/28/2009 version I have is that very few of the pictures are identified as to species, leaving them open to interpretation or opinion as to what they may truly be.

I'm curious what your source of 'gathering' is.

 

If any have IDs attached it is because they were in the original source. All locales are also from the original sources and give indication as to species in most cases...the ubiquitous T. pachanoi being the main exception. I think it far better to leave photos of plants that lack ID without them than be so presumptuous as to "determine" the species for everyone else. The collections intent is to preserve a record of the Trichocereus as photographed in South America, and in this regard locations are of greater importance than ID as far as I am concerned. It simply wasn't put together as a guide to determining the species of each inclusion. As to my "gathering" that the clear majority of plants of that particular region are T. schoenii I can only say it's common sense to me, but I certainly am not trying to tell others what to think. Rather, I am simply telling others what it is that I think.

~Michael~

Edit for spelling and grammar.

Edited November 24, 2011 by M S Smith

[Gunter]

I think it far better to leave photos of plants that lack ID without them than be so presumptuous as to "determine" the species for everyone else.

 

that i can respect

[tipz]

that i can respect

 

Hey guys ... Ill stop trying to ID plants here on the forum.

I try make my presumptions a suggestion, rather than a definative answer.

But i only learn from my computer (you guys and google) and cactus i.d sites.

I have no formal education in the I.D of cacti and am pretty new to the scene.

If my often incorrect ID's (guesses) are confusing the situation I will refrain from doing so. Just after self-validation i suppose. But i can still sit back and observe and continue learning that way. My apologies

[Micromegas]

Nice Michael. That first shot is great. I hiked through the canyon and I swear i took photos of the exact same plants, showing the exact kind of diversity! So you saved me the trouble of uploading them. They look like the schoenii in the book mentioned. Nice plant. Quite distinct from the plants in the northern andes. It's interesting how they became speciated, I wonder what the factor is that separated them, the cold of the high mountains perhaps? For example, further south in Bolivia I saw T.bridgessii and they seemed to be separated from the plants of southern peru by a high and cold altiplano stretching from just outside la paz to the other side of Lake Titicaca, around which I saw no wild (but some cultivated) Trichocereus.

[Gunter]

Hey guys ... Ill stop trying to ID plants here on the forum.

 

I don't think anybody wants anyone to stop working on ID,

I think that it is just complicated, if you have seen enough cacti you have pretty much seen an exception to every rule of thumb for ID, like plants that shape shift with age and condition.

[M S Smith]

Thanks Gunter.

Tipz, no reason to stop the effort, but qualifiers like "looks to be", "might be", "could be", etc., are generally a good idea if uncertain.

Micro, not post your photos? Come on now! Here's more plants from Colca Canyon. I love the bird one and just thought I would post the flower for those knowledgeable enough to compare to other Trichocereus.

~Michael~

[faslimy]

i really need that torrent, perhaps someone can put it in rar index and upload to megaupload or similar server?

[Gunter]

very interesting flower pictures!

[M S Smith]

Thought I would toss one in of the fruit.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Here's another suspected T. schoenii from Colca Canyon. I can't quite get an idea of the diameter of this plant as I can't tell where the woman is standing in relation to it, but regardless, this is a massive plant.

~Michael~

Edited December 2, 2011 by M S Smith

[Bretloth]

That's an impressive cactus, cheers for the info and pics guys