Trichocereus peruvianus crest/monster discussion

[Anodyne]

to sum up, even if the genomes of 'true pachanois' were found to be that similar with 'true peruvianus' so that all the species including macrogonus and whatnot fell into subspecies/var status, I would still observe two different phenotypes with a need for a name each to distinguish.

This is interesting to me. You say you're familiar with phenotypical variation in mushrooms, so you know how much species can vary depending on environment & still be the same species underneath. So why would you place so much stock in appearance when trying to decide species, and think that a different phenotype necessarily means a distinct genetic variety requiring its own name? A mushroom growing in dense forest might look very different from its brother growing on a soccer field, but if they were the same species I wouldn't call one A. example var. woodland and A. example var. field, because the phenotype probably doesn't represent true genetic variation.

So are you just trying to ID your crest, or are you looking to define the inter-species variability of trichocereus?

I remember reading that some orchid varieties - because there are friggin thousands of them - are defined by percentages of their parent strains (I don't know if they do DNA tests or just have impeccable breeding records). It's a pity trichs don't have a similar system, so instead of arguing about "true" pachs, you could just say that plant is 75% pach/25% peru, & that one is 12% pach/24%bridg/64% cuzco or whatever. These plants have been interbreeding & mutating for a long time, we're only seeing what's on the surface.

"Mongrel"...I think I'll be using that one..."peruvianish mongrel"..."skinny blue bridgey mongrel"... I like it.

[mutant]

You say you're familiar with phenotypical variation in mushrooms, so you know how much species can vary depending on environment & still be the same species underneath.

Yep and its really more complicated than this. But in the end of the day thats why we have to be more specific in identifying mushrooms, cause we eat them, thats why we have descriptions of species, to be able to tell, despite the variation.. because more often than not, sizes overlap so we have to study several of the identification traits to be able to draw a conclusion. And at the end, only with experience we are able to be more assured about what we identify.

In the same mushroom, the sizes may vary dramatically (different wood, elevation, season, etc). Colours , shape and almost all identification characteristics can change for baby , immature, mature, overmature specimens of the same species in the same habitat. Some species vary a lot by themselves in the same habitat. F.e. Russula cyanoxantha, a choice edible can have colours on the cap from dark olive purplish, to greenish blue, to pale greenish, to pale purple even pinkish. Yet with experience, after picking and feeling many ones, we can start distinguishing them more easily from same coloured puplish hot inedible Russula sp growing in the same forest. Expert pickers pick babies for food. They even eat raw wood agaricus babies, while a beginer might confuse a baby Amanita phalloides for a baby agaricus.

The same species in dry weather or wet weather, the cap surface dry or wettish.. All this stuff play a role in the appearance of the mushroom and there are references in ID books to dryness or wetness. F.e. for Boleti. Boletus edulis has smooth cap suface dry but kinda sticky with some wetness and almost slimy very wet

A mushroom growing in dense forest might look very different from its brother growing on a soccer field, but if they were the same species I wouldn't call one A. example var. woodland and A. example var. field, because the phenotype probably doesn't represent true genetic variation.

hehe this is the tricky part: you say "if they were the same species" , but if they are looking different and were found in completely different habitats, then how can we tell that they are the same species? Instinct? With the help of the description of the species, no?

And by the way, if two mushrooms both have differences in appearance and fruit in another habitat, one would initially think they were a different species, as habitat is an identification point for mushrooms. A soccer/field mushroom would normally not appear in dense forest, but rather in forest margins, forest roads and big forest clearings. A fine example of this is Agaricus sp.

There's another example. They used to have Cantharellus cibarius var albus, which was the whitish pale phenotype the mushroom sometimes takes.. well after some years when I saw the variety of the fruit bodies (in shape and colour) from season to season, spot to spot, I figured out most vars of Cantharellus cibarius are crap and indeed most or all fell into oblivion ...

Then sometime, I was picking in a different habitat (different kind of oak), and as I was picking I was thinking these specimens look somewhat different.. Well I went home and read the descrpitions of some other Cantharellus species. It was C.ferruginasens and it was the description of the species that made me conclude so.

But this mushroom talk was all to prove explain to my pal zelly that I know what a phenotype is and how its linked with the geno.

So why would you place so much stock in appearance when trying to decide species, and think that a different phenotype necessarily means a distinct genetic variety requiring its own name?

I never said a different phenotype necessarily means a distinct genetic variety, but I did say that a distinct plant/phenotype might deserve its own name, even in the horticultural sense, and to be honest we already have too much of these names. I did not create them. Some I find justified some others not so much.

The way to tell for me is the phenotype. And the reason I place all my focus on the appearance, looks, is that I grow almost all of my cacti in the same conditions, with the same more or less substrate... I dont tend to draw concludions when its too small or if I have just got it or if its a bad shape.

Its really more simple than with mushrooms. You have to grow it out.. New growth is quite telling IMO, but there are other characteristics only observed with time, like maximum spine length and girth, maximum areole size, new spines grown from old areoles , speed of growth, tendency to pup (to mention some stuff relative for trichocereus)

So are you just trying to ID your crest, or are you looking to define the inter-species variability of trichocereus?

I have drawn some very interesting preliminary conclusions for my specimens thanks to this thread. But no my quest isn't really about this.. I was trying to do exactly what occured.. discuss this stuff

My crests are too small to tell, and from what you can see (Swiper + Micoz photos) it will take some 3-4 years to grow them crests out and see.. from the number and size of micoz plants coming from a single cutting, it seems its a fast grower which matches cuzcos fast growth rate..

In the mean time, it would be cool to see more specimens

[incognito]

Yep this is from the one wt, pd and I went thirds in. I've seen them sell other "tpm" cuts on eBay as well. I'm propagating bejesus out of it maybe bioassay, should really have bioassayed before I propagated it.

The argument of what a trich can go on forever and the sucky part is either side could be right it wrong.

I've given up smashing my head in about the pc non pc debate, I arrived at the conclusion that I could be as wrong as I thought I was right. Hamiltons have a fair bit of cred in cactus circles here in Aus and if they say that it's a Peruvian monstrose that's what I'm labelling it as. Trichocereus Peruvianus fm. crestate. From Hamiltons.

[mutant]

Only it seems to be a cuzcoensis plus there is evidence there's more than one crest strain having been sold from Hammiltons as peruv.

Plus were did strangebrew find the seed from which watertrade grew? Because that specimens dont look cuzco.

Being right or wrong in a taxonomy debate is a very naive concept. For me its not about being right or wrong, its about enjoying myself immensly through being passionate about this. What pc ~ non pc debate?

Incognito, post some pictures, and I might forget you mentioned crest bioess.