Trichocereus Distribution

[Nezahualcoyotl]

I was wondering if anybody had a good map of Trichocereus distribution in the Andes?

What areas are the most important for plant and seed collection?

[M S Smith]

Not the most inclusive, and could thoroughly use some more of my time, but have a look at my map according to Backeberg in the following thread.

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17228&hl=backeberg

Or just check it out at my Flickr page...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/msscacti/2270087488/sizes/o/in/photostream/

~Michael~

Edited September 2, 2013 by M S Smith

[tizocAu]

So pisco is south of lima. Of seen pictures of some long spined pachanoi there.

[Optimystic]

Pisco is all over Peru! in just about every bar

Lima is not really in the Andes... my cousin found a tricho there but it was at a plant shop

'Atogongoensis' jaja (town of Atocongo)

[M S Smith]

So pisco is south of lima. Of seen pictures of some long spined pachanoi there.

Yeah, south of Lima, but I don't think there are any native populations of Trichocereus in that particular coastal area. A little further inland is T. puquiensis, and some might mistake it for a long spined T. pachanoi, but I think it might be a little closer in relationship to T. cuzcoensis. This is of course not to deny longer spined T. pachanoi or that they could be in Pisco. I bet there are all sorts of interesting Trichocereus in most of the larger cities if one cared to look closely.

~Michael~

[TommyChesnutt]

So, just a question(s) here....

Why is there such a massive gap between the Chan Chan KK339-ers and the rest of the trichos? Is that just the way they evolved? (or, ie, someone migrated to chan chan a couple of millenia back from bolivia/peru and brought a typical phenotype with them?)

Are there trichos that inhabit that space in between? Or is it just a 'dead zone'?

If there are trichos in between, what kind and type are they?

Are there reports of sacramental use in that gap? Or are they simply respected as local flora ?

I definately feel the curious badger on this one..

[M S Smith]

Regarding my map, I only point out the location in which T. pachanoi was first described and it isn't meant to mean that T. pachanoi arose there.

I've presumed the the progenitor of T. pachanoi is in fact T. peruvianus that had been selected for shorter spines over the millennia, along with the ability to be maintained in more moist environments (in dryer environments they appear to need humans to maintain them, or at least a ready supply of water once planted). Interestingly enough there doesn't appear to be natural populations of self replicating T. pachanoi by seed in any region I am aware of (but damn I would love to be proved wrong), this while one can easily see that T. peruvianus needs no assistance from humans and has natural populations spread by seed. T. pallarensis and T. santaensis, if one really wants to separate them from either T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus, are in this middle region between southern Ecuador and central Peru, but I don't believe they have unassisted self replicating populations either. I've been curious about how this plays out with T. bridgesii, or if it too in the end is a cultivar like T. pachanoi.

As for the 339, well I don't trust Knize anyhow, but there are more than this phenotype in Ecuador, so it might not be best to say it is representative of Ecuadorian T. pachanoi. In fact, I've seen plants in Chile that you probably couldn't tell were much different from the 339.

So in the end, any so called "dead zone" probably has more to do with the lack of significant human populations, towns, and cities; humans simply didn't bring then there as readily due to isolation from the trade routes and ceremonial centers.

~Michael~

[TommyChesnutt]

Wait, so we can assume that much of the Trichocereus variation is man-made?

That is an epic feat.

I always thought that populations of Echinopsis evolved naturally - and that 'dead zone' occured simply because some kind of environmental influence over time seperated the two 'patches'.

I wish i knew what the motives of Andean cultures were to do this (besides the obvious...). Perhaps they didn't need any other motive?

All history says is that it was an esteemed plant and revered by the locals - but how the heck did it travel and morph to such an extent, if it was truly just 'carried'? Surely there must be alot more environmental influence involved??

Or perhaps the revered status of these plants is alot older than we thought, and the distribution happened many more thousands of years ago.. enough time for reasonable variation of the genus to occur...

[M S Smith]

Yes, we can assume all we want from the information we have, be that little or a lot, about T. pachanoi in particular being a man made variation, and that is really all I'm doing and one can agree, disagree, or even find some comfortable place in-between if they like, but one need only look at the history of the potato in South America to see that its inhabitants were capable of such feats as the development and cultivation of certain traits in Trichocereus. And as for "enough time," well one need only look at dogs and realize that the great majority of breeds were developed in the last few hundred years to provide some additional support.

K.Trout (our trucha) already said that Albesiano & Kiesling's genetics work "appears to be splitting off bridgesii on its own but connecting pachanoi, peruvianus and macrogonus into one species" (http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36258&p=435117), and though this information isn't proof for any of my speculations it is one more piece in the puzzle I think we all are trying to put together.

~Michael~

[woof woof woof]

I should go tricho hunting then for a strain that grows well in dryer / lower elevations.....500 m or less in close to arid/tropical conditions......... make my own new strain