A cool looking cactus in Bolivia

[trucha]

http://www.tropicos.org/Image/100155570

[M S Smith]

Charazani is the home of the Kallawaya people who have a long history of traditional healing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kallawaya_people

Interesting if this was one of their traditional plants, but I bet it is just a later introduction from the northwest. And let me be the first to say it looks like T. macrogonus..te he he he he.

~Michael~

[tizocAu]

Haha I was gonna say pachanoi peruvianis intermediate aka macro?

[tizocAu]

I reckon those pictures of the pisco pachanoi with long spines look like that pachanoi I have Mike

[trucha]

It was provided as an example of macrogonus by Albesiano & Kiesling.

Her genetics work appears to be splitting off bridgesii on its own but connecting pachanoi, peruvianus and macrogonus into one species.

[M S Smith]

Meh...the whole T. macrogonus thing...but I certainly can't disagree with the idea of T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus being the same species and have discussed that to some degree in other threads (I'd certainly throw T. pallarensis and T. santaensis in with these as well).

What I'd like to figure out at this point is if, like I've suggested elsewhere, T. peruvianus is the progenitor, it being the wolf in relationship to the others which I've proposed are, like dogs, created through human intervention to either greater or lesser degree.

Now if only you can get the genetics on the PC to see if it, like I've also suggested repeatedly, is closer in relationship to T. bridgesii than to the others mentioned above.

~Michael~

Edited August 30, 2013 by M S Smith

[Optimystic]

@MS , I like your suggestion about PC Pach looking alot like a Pach x Scopulicola cross

When they are young and get a fat tip, they look alot like a scop.. I never did get that Bridgesii relation

but now that i've seen more crosses I know it can be difficult to recognize both parents traits in a hybrid

I bought a PC last year through ebay, cause I thought it maybe a scop

a box of PC showed up lol

I completely agree about Peruvianus... I think its the capstone on the proverbial pyramid

I've seen it said that the Macrogonus name was created first

but really, what does that matter.. .epsecially since most believe whatever Mac is to be an intermediary

how in the world could another plant become a sub species of Macrogonus?

but at least someones working on getting them fit into the same umbrella... I think that's a start towards

accuracy if thats possible if anything, lets get rid of "Echinopsis", at least for the big columns

Edited August 30, 2013 by Spine Collector

[trucha]

Names of cacti are assigned according to rules based on priority of publication. Macrogonus was published first so takes priority.

Its easy to forget taxonomy is not actually about the plants but rather is entirely about how we choose to describe and organize them. Taxonomy is largely committee generated and is a higly politicized process.

The Melbourne Code is available and might help make more sense of it. It may be online already? Earlier versions of the Rules of Nomenclature are but this one contained lots of changes.

Its interesting that when Backeberg came across peruvianus in the wild he declared that he had found macrogonus and presented the photo AS a macrogonus. He also suggested that peruvianus would need to be abandoned (an opinion he voiced twice in print). It appears to have been pure politics involving his superior Werdermann that caused that suggestion to be dropped as Werdermann was at that point trying to rename Trichocereus peruvianus as Cereus roseus.

Edited August 31, 2013 by trucha

[trucha]

This is Backeberg's first presentation of this image. In his later two publications of the same photo it was labeled T. peruvianus.

If macrogonus is abandoned, peruvianus becomes a subset of pachanoi due to the rules of priority (pachanoi being considered to appear first due to their publication in the same work being in alphabetical order).

Interestingly macrogonus was and still is far better described in print than peruvianus. It actually saw a floral description published whereas Britton & Rose never saw a flowering plant.

Its largely an error in Schumann that caused this to become such a mess. Much gets made of that account by Schumann on the assumption he believed what was published but a lot of people seem to have missed the fact that Schumann caught this error very rapidly - within just the next several years he was suggesting short spined bridgesii and macrogonus were probably synonyms. Berger also caught it very rapidly and published a clear correction of the error.

I suspect the error in Flora Brasilensis resulted from a typesetter problem deleting parts of two entries but Werdermann later compounded the problem but accepting the error as fact.

There is an unmistakeable image of macrogonus in Berger's book on the page where he discusses grafting.

All of this is available online as PDFs of the original works.

Of particular interest to me is Field's macrogonus as it is believed to have been wild collected in Bolivia in the 1930s by Blossfeld. Bretloth has a number of images posted.

Albesiano & Kiesling's attempt to resurrect macrogonus is part of the attempt to bury Echinopsis sensu lato and revive Trichocereus.

Edited August 31, 2013 by trucha

[Optimystic]

see thats why im not in charge cause i'd fuck all the rules haha

I reckon 'Macrogonus' might take the same road as "Echinopisis" as its

sorta logically a clusterfuck in terms of organizing the species

the rules in this case, just put way too much emphasis on a couple of dudes

who went around exploring the mountains.. not that I don't appreciate them

hell, they are a huge part of this whole story, but still eh

IMO the rule should state, that if a genus gets totally clusterfucked, then somewhat of a

new page should be created to reorganize, which temporarily evades political correctness

in the name of acceptablity, reasonability, integrity, and simplification...

A.R.I.S. <---

will the real political correctness, please stand up!

this whole idea of attempting to be 'politically correct' is pretty much echoed throughout the free world lol

the same rules just don't work well with everything... me for instance hehehe

I do wish the woman luck in the pursuit of her passion! I will still love the plants

even if they call them "Space Junk" eh

I do appreciate your updates in regards to the whole species...

its nice to keep track even if I don't totally agree with the politics

somehow I think it might be a good thing that its all screwy I guess

maybe someday each species will get a representative who actually understands opuntias (quirk)

Edited August 31, 2013 by Spine Collector

[trucha]

That all is logical but its worth keeping in mind that communication between humans is always going to be imperfect. RIght now what this is based on is published descriptions. Far from perfect but its really not a bad attempt to try and reach a consensus on what to call things. Requiring people to publish valid descriptions before accepting their name proposals is certainly a fair requirement.

The purpose of names is really only to try to be sure we all use the same words for the same plant, simply to try to be sure we are really discussing the same thing when speaking. Again its not about the plants but rather is entirely about how we view and catagorize the plants.

It would be nice for something methodical and field linked to exist but a pertinent question arise as to who PAYS for that work. Science runs based on having research funding. Most people, myself excluded obviously, don't work for free.

The amount of time, energy and money required to deal with a comprehensive field survey would be immense. This would, in most cases, be true even if it only involved one single Trichocereus species. I'd expect field work for either pachanoi or peruvianus would require *at least* several years of actual field work and well into the thousands of dollars.

With macrogonus much of the problems came about as a result of people not bothering to read all of the early literature (which is largely in German) and as a result getting hung up on thinking Flora Brasiliensis was really Schumann's opinion.

I'd certainly missed Schumann's 1899 and the floral comments by Berger until recently.

In many ways macrogonus is actually a more solidly described name than peruvianus. If a person accepts that Schumann in Martius was an error and by extension rejects the later comments based on it being truely intended as written, macrogonus is not really any more confused or clusterfucked than peruvianus. I don't believe that peruvianus has ever actually seen a decent description?

I'd preserve the name peruvianus for the Rio Rimac type but would subset it within macrogonus. Due to what is ongoing with Albesiano I'd anticipate having macrogonus linked to wild populations within the very near future. All that is needed at that point to clarify or reject this line of thought is comparing it to the European material using genetics studies.

[trucha]

One big part of the problem is both Britton & Rose and Backberg were disturbingly sloppy workers. Many names published by all three people never should have seen print or been accepted due to being inadequately described.

All three have created many areas of huge messes that are unlikely to be resolved without an immense amount of time and effort by someone. Its almost funny that Backberg not only knew this but actually argued that his failure to comply with conventional taxonomic practices needed to be accepted as OK due to it being required to "get the job done"

[Optimystic]

I believe that a real sign of intelligence is blatant sloppiness! I still don't have a good excuse tho hehe

I couldn't agree more about the communication between humans..

if and when we get that right, im sure a number of things will follow suit...

In a way its sad that money rules.. I know its the way of the trade but at the end of the day, whoever has the most makes the rules

irregardless... I don't think this whole cactus naming business is corrupt or anything, but a few have taken the lead, still very few care

enough to absorb themselves into the work and thus there really isn't a consesus, its still a matter of getting the job done.... but in the name

of Merit I think the ppl who most deserve the right to reorganize the names are the ones who put themselves in that position through their own hard work and dilligence... I just wish more ppl would jump on that bandwagon or that I would be rich enough to get there haha, but im quite new to this and maybe a bit over opinionated

so i'd happily take a position as a photographer, running around the mountains capturing my passions digitally

I have to agree that its not a bad attempt to arrive at a consensus.... we are a complicated species and thus we are masters at creating complexity Mix us with a species as diverse as Trichocereus and well, we'll come up with all sorts of new ways to describe it... to please everyone is absurd lol and I suppose we have to just be happy with where the funding leads us as it applies to arriving at something that might be more agreeable, be it imperfect... at the end of the day, im more happy to see the resurrection of Trichocereus (its not like it ever went away, so in a way moving back this way is in fact, politically correct, at least imo but I think most would agree) ... I can adopt any nomenclature which is widely accepted... I just have my ego wrapped around this word "Macrogonus" so I admit I may be engaging in a sort of Backeberg style egoism in relation to my opinion ... haha

I still have to consider that whoever decided to go with "Echinopsis" somehow used the rules to justify that judgement call... I haven't looked into that though so my assumption could be way off eh my objection to "Macrogonus" is therefore my own opinion but which is subject to change

As far as Peruvianus goes, what a clusterfuck! it sure is a beautiful clusterfuck tho!

I sorta regained a passion for life in pursuit of being able to raise a number of Triches

and so I guess I have this really strong appreciation for the plant... and this naming game

is, in my eyes, the crux of mother nature x human nature... I don't think plants care so much what we call

them so long as we live in harmony with...

funny i was just mentioning to someone i'd rather us all agree on something that is wrong

rather than all compete to be right... but really when it comes to politics, right is nothing more than that which is agreeable

and I can see the attempt to arrive at such a point ... being farily new to this, I have more recently been exposed to all

the confusion that many, seemingly, have just sorta learned to live with... so I guess the confusion might be a little more

fresh on my mind, as many of the conversations I read about this are on forms dated several years ago... I think it amounts to interesting times for tricho politics... not only are there quite alot of new hybrids going around but this as well so I reckon im best off absorbing myself into appreciation for the whole picture

The hard part with trichos would be the vast number of natural hybrids and intermediates and that gives the obvious reasoning

for putting the main groups under one umbrella ... and within the realm of language, that is perhaps the best we can do, whether

we end up using one word or the other for the main heading.... I wish I could get involved somehow but its obviously one of those

careers where one must sponsor theirself..I reckon i'd be best off attaining a degree in something if I want to play in that realm

I think the botanical garden nearby is giving scholarships.. someone just mentioned that to me the other day so I may just look into that

anyhow, thanks again Trucha your insight is much appreciated..you've been at it alot longer than me and i've learned as much from your or more than from anyone else regarding trichos and you are a really friendly character... so I can't wait to get my hands on a few extra bucks so I can paypal you over some support for your efforts ... meanwhile don't mind me.. I spent more than a decade imagining I would be a great politician and then discovered that im just way too honest, even if most of my honesty boils down to being not much more than my own opinions, as I perceive them... i've never had a problem sharing those haha

Edited August 31, 2013 by Spine Collector

[trucha]

Opinions are great to share. Most of this lacks any real right or wrong as its just about sharing assorted people's opinions, whether our own or someone we read or spoke with.

I can't agree more about the plants, its an amazingly beautiful and diverse spectrum that exists for almost all of them. Maybe all of them?

[M S Smith]

KT, interesting how much the plant in the Charazani Valley, prov. B. Saavedra, dpto. La Paz, Bolivia photo...

looks like the Wade Davis plant passed along as T. bridgesii...

The spination is a bit different, but that can be due to my significantly different environment.

Your thoughts.

~Michael~

[trucha]

Interestingly that "Wade Davis" plant you refer to appears to have entered into our worlds with seriously bad information.

Whether that was alcohol-derived or what, I have no idea but the original source it came from now has no knowledge of ever having gotten it from Davis or of ever saying anything similar about it. You and I recall differently of course based on what was said about it more than a decade ago but what does one do when the source of data ceases to recall they were the source of data?

Its not the first time that you or I have encountered such a thing of course.

[M S Smith]

Any idea of it's provenance? I certainly never thought it much for a T. bridgesii, but just kept the name it was passed on to me as as usual. Looks like a T. macrogonus to me (te he he he he), speaking of which, don't overlook my newest post in your funny ebay thread.

~Michael~

[trucha]

The last thought I heard was "I think it probably came from Bob Gillette". A far cry from "I got this from Wade Davis" which is what accompanied it originally - with all of those words coming out of a single mouth.

I'm digging for more information through that grower's ex-wife in hopes she can locate something more meaningful.

Some things that I've consistently learned: 1) most growers don't know as much as we would like to believe they know, 2) many of them really do not care a rat's ass about taxonomy or names and 3) LOTS of them lack the ability to reliably say "I don't know."