Documenting and breeding for traits in Trichocereus

[deadhor5]

It has come to my attention that we are an extremely unique communtiy. No other family of cacti has a fanbase that rivals the Trichocereus community. As cacti are generally understudied, it could be argued that a lot of our work is a part of the cutting edge in cactus research, however i feel the majority of us (less so on this forum then others) treat this as a simple hobby with the mindset of "Throw the seeds down and see what comes out." Googling almost any cactus related query inevitably turns up at least a few pages on trichocereus withi the first few pages of search results, how is it then that we still understand so little about these cacti? There is little consensus on where the taxonomic boundaries lie, or even what constitutes a species vs a variation. However, taxonomy is best left to the nitpicky scientists. We as a community are seeking generally the same favorable traits from these cacti, and with the sowing of tens of thousands, if not hundreds or even millions, every year, how is it that there has been minimal effort to produce a more domestic variety of Trichocereus? A cactus tuned to the desires of it's primate cultivators.

I propose that we begin an effort to utilize our interest in these cacti to produce a variety of trichocereus that is, shall we say, "ethnobotanically ideal"? Granted, a project like this is no small undertaking, however if we approach it as a community I feel that we can have at least mild success. The first step is to compose a list of ideal traits for such a cactus. After this we would need to gather a list of current clones and varieties that would be useful in obtaining these traits. Then we would need to begin the first generation of crosses. If we approach this in a similar way to Nitrogens mutant crosses, spreading large amounts of properly identified and documented seeds across the community. Then we would need to collect data, as the 1000's of seeds are grown. We would need to compile a list of expressed traits from these crosses, pictures of many seedlings and expressed traits for reference, and ideally, some amount of testing for various traits like water, light, and fertilizer tolerance. Utilizing this data we could select a few ideal offspring to clone and spread for the first generation. We would have to repeat this process for many generations, however each generation will bring us a step closer.

Clearly this is no simple task, however with a community as unique as ours I feel that it is our responsibility to each other, as well as to these plants, toundertake this project. Not only will it lead down a road to a super Trichocereus, but it could also be extremely useful in generating a better understanding of these plants via a slightly more sound method of testing, rather than individual cases and word of mouth.

To begin with I've made a list of traits to look for, any and all input is appreciated!

Desired traits:

Spination: short spines would be ideal for handling and harvest, however other considerations include ease of spine detatchment, areole size, and number of spines.

Water tolerance: My thinking is that a more water tolerant plant is desired, as more water = more growth. However, my reasoning may not be biologically sound.

Fertilizer tolerance: Once again more fertilizer= more vigorous growth, a cactus that can withstand more nitrogen without becoming weakened could potentially put on a lot more healthy growth every season than most others.

Pest resistance: I have no idea how this would be tested, however i thought it would be an important trait to consider.

Light resistance: More light = more growth, most trichs do best in at least partial shade, if a variety was developed that better withstood more sun it could potentially help it grow more, andproblems like sunburn and stunting wouldnt be much of an issue. (again terschekii genes may help?)

Cold resistance: another one thats hard to test, not an issue for some, but vital to others, input appreciated.

Speed of growth and girth: This is obvious enough, faster growing and thicker cacti are clearly ideal for these purpouses.

Anything i'm missing?

I hope this idea appeals to many of you as much as it does to me, as this project goes on we will only begint o obtain succesively more useful cacti, and as this project spreads we could end up with many semi-domesticated varities :D

Edited May 9, 2014 by deadhor5

[quarterflesh]

PC Pach has all that covered

[deadhor5]

PC Pach has all that covered

I disagree, however im not aware if australia's pc pach is different then the one found here. PC pach isnt very desirable imo

[Micromegas]

I propose that we begin an effort to utilize our interest in these cacti to produce a variety of trichocereus that is, shall we say, "ethnobotanically ideal"?

I'm with quarterflesh here, i think an entire range of "ethnobotanically ideal" trichocereus already exist in great abundance.

I'm at the other end of the spectrum in fact, I think we are in danger of "over-hybridising" and ending up with a whole lot of mutts we can't separate or quantify. For me the "key clones" remain the best plants and I personally don't feel they will be improved on to much extent. That's not to say interesting crosses don't turn up from time to time but they are exception not the rule.

Flower colour and cresting is what I would focus on with hybridising or growing plants from known locations in south america.

[Evil Genius]

Hi Guys, this is the second time i have to moderate this Thread so please do not discuss potency or anything about ethnobotanical desirability. Next time i will close it.

I'm at the other end of the spectrum in fact, I think we are in danger of "over-hybridising" and ending up with a whole lot of mutts we can't separate or quantify.

Micromegas, the same thing happens in nature on a day-to-day basis. All plants we have have been hybridizing with each other. Every species we know evolved from different Cacti hybridizing with each other. It is impossible to end up with chaos because chaos is already here. The current taxonomy, especially about these cacti, is a joke and nothing that should be preserved. It doesn´t matter what we do...every seed seller or Collector will supply seeds that are not-pure in regard to the species and it´s not a process that can somehow be stopped. Nor should it, because again, all the plants we have today have somehow evolved by mutts mating with each other. There is no such thing as a pure Species in the group of San Pedro Cacti. Take a look at the traits in the descriptions; everything can be crossed away within just one generation. So the classification of these cacti, using methods like spine lengths and epidermis color is extremely unreliable. Just imagine ourselves as people would try classify people by the length of their noses, ears or fingers. It´s pointless. In my opinion, the whole taxonomic system needs to define the term species a lot less strict as they do right now. A shorter spine length does not make another species.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Evil Genius

[Micromegas]

HI EG, i'm not sure about this.

In south america there is a noticeable consistency about the types of plant you find in a locality. In bolivia you see bridgessii, in argentina tersheckii, forests of atacamensis that all look identical. The same is true of espostoa, browingia, melocactus, also stenocereus and mrytillocactus in central mexico, there is a clear delineation of species. You can be sure they are all tersheckii, brigessii, atacamensis and the forests of consistent cactus are delightful. In the colca canyon, T. schoenii is dominant. In northern peru, outside of gardens and cultivated fields, there is a fairly standard t.pachanoi/peru. That's not to say some interbreeding is not going on but the selection from which to interbreed is considerably lower than in our modern gardens. Young atacamensis looking as if they are going to grow up and look like their daddy. The species have their range and breed within that and cross over is marginal at the limits of ranges or near cultivated gardens. Tersheckii is not breeding with bridgessii, atacamensis not with pachanoi and so on and so forth. I have seen these plants all in the wild and I can say for sure they are their own species living in their own homeland, just like acacia acuminata does not acacia pycnantha make. Now we have all these cactus species flowering together and we have to manually interbreed them with the use of a q-tip. Furthermore, success rate of seed in the wild is far lower and many species propagate from cuttings falling down cliff sides. So I do feel to a point that our meddling will produce a much more chaotic assemblage of non-species than species that nature has delineated in the course of evolution, geologic events, geographical boundaries and limits of spread and sophisticated plant-pollinator relationships. I view the "old clones" as purer species and the more and more we hybridize the more fond I will become of the plants I see as true to their type and that I can recognise - and many of those species have an ideal complement of qualities such as growth rate and cold and wet tolerance. I am not a botanist or taxonomist so I might be proven wrong but what we are doing in our (beautiful) trichocereus gardens is in no way akin to natural processes in my opinion.

Edit: that is not to say that some of the "old clones" (PC, yowie, psycho0, sausage plant, goliath, super ped etc.) are not themselves hybrids. I have some fantastic plants I would imagine are the result of hybridisation by australian collectors in the 1960-80s. They are not necessarily true to some wild form, PC being an example. Some of the plants I collected seed from in 2011 in Ancash did not look like "wild" plants, they looked bred, albeit some time ago, and I would gladly have them in my collection as some were as stunning as any trichocereus I have seen. But it seems to me we are in danger of ending up with 1000s of hybrids whose quality will be diminished by the abundance of plants that look "somewhat similar" and which will deviate markedly from any known parent plant or species.)

Edited May 9, 2014 by Micromegas

[Evil Genius]

Of course they have their local Population in which a certain Appearance is dominant. But the Breeding that people like us do have absolutely no Influence on the regional Population. The fact that many regional varieties exist doesn´t mean that they´ve always looked like that or that the local Population cannot breed into a totally different Direction. You know, they evolved to what they are now and sure thing is, they will not stop with evolution.

And again, i am sure that the Influence of our crosses has absolutely no influence on Populations growing in the Habitat, as long as you don´t re-introduce them in SUBSTANTIAL Amounts. And no one will be doing something like that. The Opposite is the case... Most populations are getting hacked down and extinguished because of the landscaping and buildings being put on them.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Evil Genius

[gwalchgwyn]

I get both sides; seems that we are at the accelerated end of thousands of years of Homo-Tricho synergy. Perhaps the spineless select us for suitable habitat?

[Micromegas]

Of course they have their local Population in which a certain Appearance is dominant. But the Breeding that people like us do have absolutely no Influence on the regional Population. The fact that many regional varieties exist doesn´t mean that they´ve always looked like that or that the local Population cannot breed into a totally different Direction. You know, they evolved to what they are now and sure thing is, they will not stop with evolution.

And again, i am sure that the Influence of our crosses has absolutely no influence on Populations growing in the Habitat, as long as you don´t re-introduce them in SUBSTANTIAL Amounts. And no one will be doing something like that. The Opposite is the case... Most populations are getting hacked down and extinguished because of the landscaping and buildings being put on them.

Your two posts are not really connected.

I NEVER suggested breeding by horticulturalists would affect natural populations. I am pointing out that efforts by trichocereus breeders DEFINITELY does not reflect what "happens in nature on a day-to-day basis", because natural populations are limited in their range by geology, geography, soil profiles, climate, pollinators etc etc. as i stated above.

As for the point on evolution, I'd wager the forests of trichocerues atacamensis, regardless of how you call them, have been that way for a very long time looking more or less the same as they do now, just like the california redwoods do.

I don't really care if people hybridize, but there are forms of trichocereus out there that are markedly consistent in their traits and geographical range and I would grow them as a priority over a thousand hybrids any day. That is my personal preference and not a judgement.

One thing I enjoy most about bridgessii, for example, is that they look very similar to wild plants in bolivia. But never in the wild did I see a plant i'd call spachianus x super pedro!

I get both sides; seems that we are at the accelerated end of thousands of years of Homo-Tricho synergy

Haha. I like the term, however Homo-Tricho synergy has decelerated since about 100 AD. We're just catching up.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Micromegas

[Evil Genius]

Micromegas, it is neither my intention to make a discussion out of this nor to judge about your personal preferences or view of local Cactus populations.

The History of Taxonomy and Cactus Classification is very young and a hundred years of cactus photography is a very short timespan. But still, during that time, some cacti vanished from the earth and many new varieties and species were discovered. I am pretty sure that they weren´t new but just haven´t been looked at before, but the consistency of a population is still something that we with our limited lifespan can hardly measure. Of course, populations go back a long time, maybe thousands of years. But that doesn´t mean that the population always looked like this.

And a "pure Form" is something very fluid because there is so much variability within most species we know. Just look at Trichocereus Terscheckii and the many varieties that exist. Now, who am i to decide which one is THE True Species, that deserves to be grown? Some can be found more frequently than others in certain Areas but that doesn´t make them more worthy of being grown than the plants that reflect the typical (and oftentimes, faulty) descriptions.more than others.

I have absolutely no problem with your views and you are right in so many ways that i really lack the motivation to discuss with you about it. The Reason i am writing about it is that i feel like many people see hybrids as a bad thing, which in my eyes, is totally one-sided and unreflected view of the concept of Evolution. I am not saying that YOU think this; just saying that some people think that way and as a breeder, it feels like i am obliged to point out that natural Hybrids are everywhere and that the species we know today have evolved and didn´t suddenly pop out an eggshell.

I have nothing but respect for you and this is the last post i will be writing about this.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Evil Genius

[M S Smith]

Shit, I want in on this, but my thoughts right now are limited by my time and I have so incredibly little right now. I now have three posts I want to make significant responses to. Ugh.

And I certainly don't mean in any way to settle the matter on anything, just share my thoughts, flaws and all.

~Michael~

[deadhor5]

Shit, I want in on this, but my thoughts right now are limited by my time and I have so incredibly little right now. I now have three posts I want to make significant responses to. Ugh.

And I certainly don't mean in any way to settle the matter on anything, just share my thoughts, flaws and all.

~Michael~

Your input would be of great value to me MS!

[Micromegas]

^^ indeed.

Also, all good EG I understand the difficultly in getting all the nuances and complexity across in an internet forum. In person I am sure it would be a hearty discussion. The respect is mutual.

I will continue to think about trichocereus as having some key and discernible species. I have 100s or even 1000s of photos of what I am discussing one day I'd love to share them.

That being said, I am a lay person with a personal (not a professional) interest and my level of knowledge is more general than "taxonomically" detailed.

[Quixote]

With all respect for EG's argument, we could also say that none of us are human beings, we are just collections of atoms. But our human consciousness is built on generalisations, such as for example calling similar looking cacti, that can interbreed, members of a species. So why not focus on finding and describing the 'real' species, that is, the largest groups that are found in the wild, as a point of reference? I see no harm in that, and I would love to see the results on a map..