Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
trucha

The Macrogonus Onus pt. 1 -- 001

Question

The Macrogonus Onus: part 1
the macrogonus stories

post-900-0-81122600-1439593135_thumb.jpg

An investigative meta-review by Keeper Trout.

-----------------------------------

This compilation is intended only to aid private research and is not intended for distribution or publication. It had grown too large so was divided into smaller sections.
Part 1 is still in-progress but has finally reached the reference literature excerpt assembly stage and is ready to be edited into a final document.
I welcome comments about any errors or omissions.
Translations into English, whether from Latin, German, French, Italian or Danish, were intentionally created to be readable rather than literal so paraphrasing will be noticed as commonplace. Please bring any need for corrections or fine-tuning to my attention.

I was unable to determine the copyright holder for some images of people and places. If any image included herein is considered objectionable let me know and I will immediately remove it or will pay fair compensation for its inclusion.

This work never could have been created if not for the University of Texas at Austin's library system and Inter-library loan's help in locating many of these publications. It never could have been completed this far without the existence of some additional amazing digital resources such as CactusPro's online library, Bioheritage Diversity Project, and the Bibliothèque nationale de France who have made the vastly largest part of the old botanical literature available for anyone to access. The people behind those endeavors are true educators.

Biodiversity Heritage Library
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/Default.aspx

Botanicus
http://www.botanicus.org/browse/titles

Cactus & Succulent Digital Library
http://www.cactuspro.com/bibliø
The single most amazing collection of cactus literature that I am aware of.

Gallica
The digital library of the National library of France.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/?〈=EN

another great resource that was not used in this is
Virtual library del Real Jardín Botánico CSIC
http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/index.php

This review includes what I believe to be copyrighted materials. I also believe that this use of those copyrighted materials within this review falls within "Fair Use" as defined in the "Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "
I believe that to be true, based on the reason that this article is a scholarly review of historical material which is intended entirely for noncommercial educational purposes. If the copyright laws of another country conflict with this, or even if any copyright owner simply objects to my inclusion of their images, let me know via a PM and I will promptly remove them.


The larger picture involving the name macrogonus

Part one is focused on assembling the literature concerning or mentioning the name Trichocereus macrogonus and presenting images of some horticultural plants known under this name.
Parts two through nine present a similar but presently less extensive assemblage of reference materials for pachanoi AKA Albesiano & Kiesling's macrogonus subsp. pachanoi, "the macrogonus formerly known as peruvianus", bridgesii, cuzcoensis, other related trichs, and additional supportive material.

My intention is to put the entirety of Part One online in this forum for public review and discussion.

The present document is 245 pages long but nearly half of that is images.

The contents:

The literature around the name macrogonus -- 7
Cereus macrogonus Otto -- 8
Carl Friedrich Förster. 1846 -- 10
Jos. de Salm-Dyck. 1850. -- 11
J. Labouret. 1853. -- 13
C. F. Förster. 1886 -- 16
W. Watson 1889 -- 18
B. von Ladenberg. 1893. -- 19
De Martius et al. 1899. -- 20

FAC Weber. 1899.
K. Schumann. 1899. -- 28
M. Gürke. 1907. -- 35
A. Berger. 1904. -- 36
A. Berger. 1905. -- 39
V. Riccobono. 1909. -- 41
N. L. Britton & J. N. Rose. 1920. -- 45
E. Schelle. 1926. -- 48
A. Berger. 1929. -- 50
A.V. Frič. 1931-1932. -- 52
C. Backeberg (& E. Werdermann). 1931. -- 53
E. Werdermann. 1933. -- 55
Catalogue Jahandiez. 1934. -- 56
Kakteenkunde. 1934. -- 57
H. Blossfeld. 1935. -- 58
K. Kreuzinger. 1935. -- 60
Guillaumin Cactees. 1935. -- 64
C. Backeberg & F. M. Knuth. 1936. -- 65
C. Backeberg. 1937. -- 67
Rimac river & valley map -- 68
J. Borg. 1937. -- 69
J. Borg. 1951. -- 69
C. Backeberg. 1941. -- 70
P. Fournier. 1954. -- 72
H. Johnson. c. 1958-1968. -- 75
C. Backeberg. 1959. -- 76
S. Agurell. 1969. -- 84
G.D. Rowley. 1974. -- 85
H. Krainz. 1975. -- 86
C. Backeberg. 1977. -- 90
D. N. Smith. 1982 -- 94
Smithʼs collection site -- 101
E. F. Anderson. 2001. -- 103
D. H. Hunt & ICSG. 2006. -- 105
S. Albesiano & R. Kiesling. 2012. -- 107

S. Albesiano & T. Terrazas. 2012

P. Jorgensen et al. 2015

J. Lode et al. 2015.
Some Cereus weirdness -- 125-134
Cereus bolivianus -- 125
Cereus hempelianus -- 126
Cereus hexagonus -- 128
Cereus heptagonus -- 130
Cereus tetracanthus -- 131
Cereus tephracanthus var. bolivianus -- 131
Cactus catalogs -- 135
NonKnize field collections -- 136
macrogonus in horticulture -- 138

-----------------------------------

The literature around the name macrogonus

The identity of Trichocereus macrogonus would seem like an easy thing to determine. Especially as it was declared to be the type for the genus Trichocereus. It has also been discussed in print by at least a handful of experts who were familiar first-hand with the original material growing under cultivation in Berlin, Germany or its progeny under cultivation elsewhere in Europe. There have even been published descriptions and photographs, albeit none very good until surprisingly recent times -- and some creating lasting problems.
At present the burden of proof is on anyone to link their modern concept of a macrogonus to what Salm-Dyck described in 1850. It MIGHT be possible using modern molecular tools but interestingly it appears to be more difficult to trace any of the macrogonus in Europe back to Berlin than it appears to be to find it growing in South America. Without the existence of solid links on both ends of that, any pronouncements of synonymity will remain hollow in meaning.
This is a peculiar story filled with more new questions than answers.
Here is the tale documented as best as the ‘facts’ at hand will permit.
Please pardon my ob-alliterative pun of a title.

-------------------------------------

Cereus macrogonus Otto
is given by Schumann, Riccobono, Britton & Rose and others as the type species for the genus Trichocereus but no further information about where it appeared in use or print. As far as can be determined, it lacked any earlier description than what seems to have been cowritten by Otto & Salm-Dyck.

Otto = Christoph Friedrich Otto
4 December 1783 (Schneeberg, Saxony) – 7 December 1856 (Berlin)

Otto is often associated with
Johann Heinrich Friedrich Link
2 February, 1767 (Hildesheim) – 1 January, 1851 (Berlin)

No matter where the name came from, the first player to enter the scene and leave their name persistently attached to some actual comments about our macrogonus is Jos. de Salm-Dyck.

This image was gleaned from online. I do not know its origin.

post-900-0-95592000-1439593931_thumb.jpg

Prince Joseph Maria Franz Anton Hubert Ignaz Fürst zu Salm-Reiffersscheid-Dyck
1773 - 1861

The Prince sure does look like he would rather be out in his garden.


It might be remembered that, as is also true for the “soft” schools of martial arts such as Wing Chun, cactus collection in Europe was once entirely the domain of the rich. Namely those people who had both the available free time and the money to devote to doing things that always require a lot of time and money but usually pay nothing.

-----------------------------------

Berol.

AKA

Hortus regius Berolinensis

Botanischer Garten Berlin = Botanischer Garten Dahlem

= Botanischer Garten Berlin-Dahlem
the “botanical gardens at Berlin”

As seen in 1909

post-900-0-16977900-1439594389_thumb.jpg

As seen in 1936

post-900-0-65816300-1439594453_thumb.jpg

All buildings are said to have been destroyed or to have sustained damage during WWII.
Most of their collection of living cacti and the herbarium were lost to the bombing and subsequent water damage followed by cold weather. Berlin's herbarium contained not just herbarium sheets of dried cacti; it also included many intact cactus specimens, sections and parts that were being preserved in liquid in jars. This was obviously only one of many millions of tragedies resulting from that war but it represented an enormous loss to botanical science.

-----------------------------------

Carl Friedrich Förster. 1846.
Handbuche der Cacteenkunde

macrogonus was mentioned only in passing; on page 391.

post-900-0-18381600-1439594645_thumb.jpg

"Zu dieser Untersippe gehören auch: C. macrogonus & tortus H. berol.; d. letztere ist noch sehr selten."

"Also in this branch are C. macrogonus & tortus Hort. Berol; the latter is still very rare."

-----------------------------------

Jos. de Salm-Dyck. 1850.
Cacteae in Horto Dyckensi Cultae, Anno 1849

p 46
Cereus macrogonus II. Berol. (59.)
"aculeis albidus, saepe apice nigris"

"spines whitish" (implying a soiled white), "with tips blackish" (nigris can imply a black that is a bit rusty)

The epithet in Schumann indicates that this was at least partly written by Otto rather than by Salm-Dyck. Assuming that to be true and taking Förster's comments literally would suggest that Otto wrote the first paragraph and Salm-Dyck the second. They certainly do appear to say much the same thing being voiced by two observers.

p. 203

post-900-0-03654500-1439594741_thumb.jpg

p. 203
(59) C. Macrogonus II. Berol.


" C. caulo erecto columnari subglaucescenti-læteviride 6—7 angulato, costis turgidis obtusissimis apicem versus obrepandis ad pulvillos crenato-plicatis et colore intensius viride arcuatim notatis, pulvillis confertis griseo-tomentosis, aculeis rigidis abbreviatis brunneis, in pulvillis junioribus 8—10, in senioribus 18—20, erecto-patulis, 3—4 validioribus. (Nob.)


 Caulis hucusque 8—10 pollicaris, diametro fere bipollicari. Costæ rotundatæ, faretæ, superne ad pulvillos plicatæ et arcu viridiore notatæ. Pulvilli lin. 3—4 distantos parvuli, grisei. Aculei primo subregulariter disprositi, 7—9 radiantes cum centrali 1; sed mox (aculeis novis enascentibus) sine numero ac ordine normali erecto-patuli, graciles, brunnei, 3—4 paulum validioribus, lin. 5 longis. "

" C. stems erect columnar, subglaucescent light green, 6-7 angular ribs are turgid with a blunt apex, ribs are crenelated-folded, forming the aspect of an inverted wavy-edge towards the areoles, and an intensified green color is noted to follow the arcs. Areoles are sunken and gray-felted, spines rigid, short & brown, in young areoles 8-10, in older areoles 18-20, with 3-4 stiff, sharp-pointed spines that are more powerful. (Nob.)
Stem extending 8-10 thumb-widths, almost 2 thumb-widths in diameter.
Ribs rounded, faretris [quiver?], above the areoles are folds and curving marks in richer green.
Areoles are grey and separated by 3-4 lines.
Slender, brown spines that are at first are fairly regularly distributed, with 7-9 radials and 1 central; but soon (in the newly grown spines) form without any order to the numbers, even on the 3-4 that are widely separated and a little more powerful, 5 lines long."

Comments:
Lin. = Lines/Linea.

This was an English unit of measurement possessing multiple definitions with differing lengths. The one most often used by botanists was 1/12th of an inch. It was never included in the official list of units of measurements. (A machinist's line was 1/10th of an inch but there are several other equivalencies in addition to those two.)
However. There is a problem here where I clearly lack some understanding. As a unit of measurement 1/12th of an inch is too short for what is being described when comparing this to the assorted later versions that seem to be mere retellings of this description being expressed in cm. It seems more likely to have used 1/10th of an inch (2.54 mm).

Nob. = "Nobis"
"Nobis" means "I/We (did this)" in reference to the describer of the species -- which in this case appeared to be Otto.



pollicari
Appears to mean, in this application, a "thumb-width". (Förster later commented that Salm-Dyck's plant was 20-25 cm tall and 5 cm wide so this seems like a reasonable translation.) IMHO the height of a plant in a description should not be based on a rather small potted specimen. Of course that seems like a trivial complaint considering the units of measurement that were being employed.

-----------------------------------

J. Labouret. 1853.
Monographie de la Famille des Cactées 352

[Cited by Schumann (in Martius) in reference to macrogonus.]

Pertinent points are grey-felted areoles and short brown spines with 3-4 longer spines up to 10 cm appearing irregularly.

post-900-0-77322700-1439595057_thumb.jpg

p. 352

"65. Cereus Macrogonus (hort. Berol).
Synonymie Cereus Macrogonus hort. Berol. --- id. Salm.Cact. in hort. Dyck., cult., p. 203. --- id. Forst. Handb. dr. Cact., p. 391.

Patrie?

Diagnostic. Tige dressée, columnaire, vert gai glaucescent, 6-7 côtes; côtes gonflées, très-obtuses, convexes vers le sommet de la plante, vers les aréoles comme pliées, crénelées, chaque courbure des crénelures est accompagné d'une coloration plus intense; aréoles serées, grises, tomenteuses; aiguillons rigides, courts, bruns, les jeunes aréoles en portent 8-10, les anciennes 18-20, érigées, ouvertes, 3-4 intérieurs plus vigoureux.
Tige haute de 20 cent. sur près de 5 de diamètre; côtes arrondies, enflées, comme pliées au-dessus des aréoles et marquèes d'un arc plus prononcé; aréoles grises, petites, éloignées de 9-10 millim.; dans la jeunesse, les aiguillons sont disposés assez régulièrement, 7-9 rayonnants avec 1 central, mais bientôt de nouveaux aiguillons qui apparaissent viennent troubler cet arrangement sans qu'il soit possible de recountaïtre rien de régulier dans leur disposition; les aiguillons sont érigés, étendus, grêles, bruns, 3-4 un peu plus vigoureux que les autres, ont environ 10 cent. de long.

Floraison? Fleurs?

Culture. Serre tempérée pendant l'hiver, plein air en bonne exposition pendant la belle saison. Comme presque tous les Cierges, dressés, columnaires; l'exposition la plus favorable est devant un mur bien exposé en plein midi. "

"65. Cereus Macrogonus (hort. Berol).
Synonym Cereus Macrogonus hort. Berol. --- id. Salm.Cact. in hort. Dyck., cult., p. 203. --- id. Forst. Handb. dr. Cact., p. 391.

Homeland?

Diagnostic. Stem erect, columnar, bright green becoming glaucous, 6-7 ribs; sides swollen, very-obtuse, curved toward the apex of the plant, above the areoles it is folded, crenelated, each curvature of the notching is accompanied by a more intense color; areoles are sunken, gray, wooly; spines rigid, short, brown, the young areoles bear 8-10 spines, older areoles 18-20 spines, erect, spreading, 3-4 centrals on the plant are more vigorous than the rest.

Stems 20 cm high and nearly 5 cm in diameter; sides rounded, swollen, with a fold above the areoles and marked with a more pronounced arc [of color]; areoles grayed-out, small, separated by 9-10 mm; in young growth, the spines are produced regularly enough, 7-9 radials with 1 central, but soon new spines appear which disturb this arrangement without it being possible to observe anything regular about their distribution; spines are erect, spreading, slender, browns, 3-4 are a bit more vigorous than the others and are approximately 10 cm long.

Flowering? Flowers?

Culture. Temperate Greenhouse during the winter, full air in good exposure during the nice weather. As with almost all of the erect columnar candelabras; the exposure most favorable is in front of a wall with good midday exposure. "


-----------------------------------

C. F. Förster. 1886.
Handbuch der Cacteenkunde in ihrem ganzen Umfange (by Theodor Rümpler) Volume 2: 706. [Carl Friedrich Förster]

post-900-0-44002800-1439595226_thumb.jpg

"18. Cereus macrogonus Hort. berol., Dickkantiger Kerbencactus.

Vaterland nicht bekannt. Stamm aufrecht, säulenformig, etwas bläulich. Kanten 6—7, aufgetrieben, sehr abgestumpft, gegen die Spitze hin geschweift, an den Stachelpolstern gekerbt-gefaltet und durch eine lebhafter grüne Bogenlinie markirt. Stachelpolster gedrängt stehend (7—9 mm), klein, graufilzig. Stacheln steif, kurz, braun, auf jüngeren Polstern 8—10, auf älteren 18—20, aufrecht-abstehend, 3—4 länger (11 mm), als die übrigen.
Die vom Fürsten Salm wie oben beschriebene Pflanze war 20—25 cm hoch bei einem Durchmesser von fast 5 cm.
Die Stacheln stehen anfangs ziemlich regelmässig, 7—9 Randstacheln und 1 Mittelstachel; bald aber vermehrt sich ihre Zahl und die Regelmässigkeit der Anordnung wird dadurch gestört.
Blüthen scheint man nicht beobachtet zu haben. "


"Cereus macrogonus Hort. Berol., Thick-edged Notch-Cactus.

Homeland unknown.
Stem erect, columnar, slightly bluish.
Ribs 6-7, swollen, very blunt, curved towards the tip, notched-folded at the areoles and strongly marked by a lively green curving line. Areoles pushed upright [gedrängt stehend] (7-9 mm), small, grey-felted. Spines stiff, short, brown, on younger areoles 8-10, 18-20 on older areoles, upright-spreading, 3-4 are longer (11 mm) than the others.
The plant described by Prince Salm was 20-25 cm high with a diameter of almost 5 cm.
The spines are initially fairly uniform, 7-9 radial spines and 1 central spine; but soon their numbers increase and the regularity of the arrangement becomes disturbed.
Flowers do not appear to have been observed. "

-----------------------------------

W. Watson. 1889.
Cactus Culture For Amateurs

The opening illustration in the book Cactus Culture For Amateurs shows a cactus collection that includes an early image of Cereus macrogonus.
This is the earliest illustration of this species that I have been able to locate.

post-900-0-96263100-1439595349_thumb.jpg

-----------------------------------

B. von Ladenberg. 1893.
Monatsschrift für Kakteenkunde. 3: 70- .
"Die Kakteen und Sukkulenten auf der internationalen Ausstellung in Gent."

On page 71 is a photo of a plant display assembled for the International Exhibition at Gent that features a Cereus macrogonus.
The scan that is available online is inadequate to show good detail.
This is the oldest photographic image of Cereus macrogonus that I have been able to locate. It is the tall single column on the left of the center assemblage. (The text described macrogonus as being on display in this image.)

Image from page 71:

post-900-0-21968000-1439595441_thumb.jpg

-----------------------------------

To be continued:

When we continue, an enduring glitch will be thrown into the picture.

post-900-0-81122600-1439593135_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-95592000-1439593931_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16977900-1439594389_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-65816300-1439594453_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-18381600-1439594645_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-03654500-1439594741_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-77322700-1439595057_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44002800-1439595226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-96263100-1439595349_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-21968000-1439595441_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-81122600-1439593135_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-95592000-1439593931_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16977900-1439594389_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-65816300-1439594453_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-18381600-1439594645_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-03654500-1439594741_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-77322700-1439595057_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44002800-1439595226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-96263100-1439595349_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-21968000-1439595441_thumb.jpg

Edited by trucha
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

De Martius et al. 1890.

Flora Brasiliensis 4 (1): 201-203, fig. 40
This was written by Schumann not by Salm-Dyck (who had died in 1861).

post-900-0-31136000-1439603226_thumb.jpg

p. 201
" 7. Cereus Macrogonus Salm-Dyck: caule erecto columnari apice attenuato rotundato, costis plerumque 7 rarius 8—9 crassis sectione transversa semiellipticis lateribus convexis obtusis, sinubus acutis; areolis orbicularibus vel ellipticis mediocriter distantibus tomentosis apice hand lanuginosis, aculeis periphericus pluribus validus acutissimis, centrali solitario crasso, sursum patente armatis; floribus lateralibus solitariis crassis e media areola vel parte superiore erumpentibus basi tomento desissimo suffultis infundibuliformibus, a caule patentibus basi haud curvatis; ovario semigloboso, cavitate latissima ovulis fasciculatim conjunctis impleta superne nuda, phyllis minutissimis carnosis triangularibus acutis vel obtusiusculis obsesso; tubo crasse carnoso pro rata brevi superne subangustato intus profunde sulcato "

post-900-0-24983100-1439603263_thumb.jpg

p. 202
"epapilloso; phyllis mediis abbreviatis ovato-triangularibus, majoribus stricte ovatis obtusiusculis margine extenuatis, petaloideis oblongis utrinque paulo attenuatis apice acutiusculis quam in aliis speciebus crassioribus; staminibus tubo superiori affixis inaequilongis sed perigonio brevioribus filamentis filiformibus, antheris lineari-oblongis papillosis;
stilo fistuloso androeceum paulo superante pro rata crasso tereti, stigmatibus breviusculis pluribus linearibus; bacca depressa ambitu orbiculari praesertim superne sulcata basi rotundata perigonio marcescente coronata squamis paucis munita; exocarpio crasso; seminibus regulariter seriatim foveolatis subobovatis basi oblique truncatis.

[somehow I misplaced the translation of the above so will need to edit this.]

Tabula nostra XI. (habitus et analysis)

Cereus macrogonus Salm-Dyck, Cact. hort. Dyck. 46 et 203; Labour. Monogr. 352; Först.-Rümpl. Handb. 706.
?Cereus hexagonus Vell. Fl. Flum. V. t. 18, text. ed. Netto, 194. "

post-900-0-39450200-1439603315_thumb.jpg

p 203

" Caulis c. 7 cm. diametro subglaucescenti-viridis supra areolas non raro linea impressa transversa notatus;
costae 2—2,5 cm altae tricate inferiore vel ad medium 1,5—2 cm latae, basi ad 1,3—1,5 cm augustatae;
Areolae 1—1,5 cm inter se remotae 5—6 mm diametro tomento brevi probabiliter grieo obtectae;
Aculei peripherici 3—15 mm longi teretes basi haud incrassati nigro juvelines saepius cornei, majores usque ad 2,5 cm longi centrales solitarii interdum uno alterove aucti.
Flores ad summum 7 cm longi, superne 3 cm. diametro.
Ovarium 1 cm. longum, 1,8 cm. diametro, lumen 6—7 mm. longum, 9—10 mm diametro, squamae ad summum vix 1,5 mm. longae.
Tubus perigonii 1,5 cm. longus, superne 1,6 cm. latus.
Phylla media 2, 5, 8, 10 mm. longa, basi vel superius 3, 5, 10 mm. lata;
Phylla Petaloide maxima 2 cm. longa et 1 cm. lata.
Stamina 1,2 cm. supra basin tubo affixa 2—2,5 cm. longa, totum androeceum 3—3,6 cm. longum; antherae 4-5 mm. longae, 1 mm. latae.
Stilus 5—6 cm. longus, basi sensim dilatatus ovario recte insidens 2,5 mm. diametro substriatus; stigmata 10 acuta 6 mm. longa teretia.
Bacca 3 cm. alta, 4,5 cm. diametro, exocarpium 7—8 mm. crassum.
Semina 1,5 mm. longa, 1 mm. lata, obscure brunnea vel nigra nitidula. "

"Stem around 7 cm diameter, subglaucescent-green, is not indented above the areoles or a transverse line is rarely noted;
Rib 2-2.5 cm tall at the middle or lower third, 1.5-2 cm wide at the base narrowing to 1.3-1.5 cm;
Areoles of 5-6 mm in diameter are separated from each other by 1-1,5 cm, is reliably filled with short grey felt;
Radial spines 3-15 mm long, shapely, black, thickened towards the base, with juveniles often horn-colored, the long central is solitary and up to 2.5 cm long but sometimes there are one or more others.
The flowers born in the top, 7 cm long, the upper part 3 cm. in diameter.
Ovary 1 cm. long, 1.8 cm. diameter, lumen 6-7 mm long, 9-10 mm in diameter, at the top are scales barely 1.5 mm long.
Tube segments 1.5 cm long, side 1.6 cm high.
Sepals are 2, 5, 8, 10 mm long, at the base or above 3, 5, 10 mm wide;
Petals maximum size is 2 cm long and 1 cm wide.
Stamen attached 1.2 cm above the base of the tube, 2-2.5 cm long, the whole androeceum 3-3.6 cm long; anthers 4-5 mm long and 1 mm wide.
Style 5—6 cm. at base on top of ovary gradually narrowing to 2.5 mm diameter; stigma with 10 sharp 6 mm long lobes.
Fruit 3 cm. tall, 4.5 cm diameter,
Exocarpium 7-8 mm thick.
Seeds 1,5 mm. long and 1 mm wide, dark brown, or black nitidula."

The preceding words are where trouble enters the picture.
As was noted by Britton & Rose, this appears to be a description that was for another plant; Cephalocereus (AKA Pilocereus) arrabidae from Brazil. That alone would not explain how macrogonus suddenly came to be considered a Brazilian species. It also does not explain how flowers and fruit almost magically appear with curiously little explanation or detail considering this was a plant that was, at the time, well known for not flowering.

also on p. 202

post-900-0-97265600-1439603527_thumb.jpg

" Habitat in provincia Rio de Janiero, loco haud accuratius addicto: Glaziou.

Obs. Haec species Cereo Warmingii affinitate conjuncta, tamen costis semiellipticus sectione transversa i.e. lateribus convexis, floribus crassis ad faucem tubi solemniter contractis et indole phyllorum petaloideorum statim dignoscitur. "

[Auguste Francois Marie Glaziou (1828-1906) was French. He worked and lived in Brazil.]


Notice above that the French botanist Glaziou appears to be given the blame (ahem, credit) for the geographic assignment. In Britton & Rose he is also indicated as providing Schumann with the plant, the flower and the locality.
That strongly suggests he is most likely also responsible for the rest of the weirdness but I lack enough data to know anything definitely other than that this is a mess as the description diverges from a real macrogonus in some important ways. Both the flowers and the fruit deviate most certainly but at that point no one in Europe had reported seeing flowers. That it is said to be "not indented above the areoles or a transverse line is rarely noted" is a substantial departure from all previous or subsequent descriptions. Including in Schumann's other description of Cereus macrogonus that was published in 1899.
Werdermann actually did the right thing in assigning synonymity of what is being described here as Cereus macrogonus to Pilocereus arrabidae despite compounding the problem due to not adequately noting it was an error. Albesiano & Kiesling try to make a point about the importance of Werdermann having familiarity with the Berlin plant and assigning this as a synonym but that observation has to be balanced with those other workers who held a different view of macrogonus and who were also familiar with the Berlin material or its direct progeny first-hand (such as Labouret, Schumann, Riccobono, Weber, Berger, Schelle and Backeberg). In particular, the words appearing in Backeberg 1935 that are openly critical of Werdermann's viewpoint need some consideration.
If a person accepts the identity of Pilocereus arrabidae as being valid for the description in Flora Brasiliensis, a not insignificant fact arises that the description is therefore not actually of Cereus macrogonus so Cereus macrogonus as it existed does not somehow become a synonym of Pilocereus arrabidae. Except in the sense of the mistake made inside of that one description.
Even to refer to the synonymity given by Werdermann as Cereus macrogonus K.Schumann in Martius is not really on target as Schumann actually took a very different position outside of Flora Brasiliensis. As we will explore in the next entry.
It IS noteworthy that Werdermann chose to employ Schumann in the epithet for the synonym and not Salm-Dyck OR Otto.
MUCH has been made of this description by many people. Those criticisms generally fail to consider that when Schumann wrote Gesamtbechreibung der Kakteen, published in 1899, in it was included a correction dismissing the flowers appearing in Flora Brasiliensis as being in error, and a note questioning the purported place of origin, along with a suggestion from Weber that it actually came from the Andes.
It might be suspected that this was not noticed more widely due to botanists in the USA such as Britton & Rose not being able to access, or perhaps read, the German language publications of the day. As far as I can tell, most botanists, even today, are still only familiar with Schumann's description from Flora Brasiliensis.
As for Werdermann? There was some oddness that lacks a clear explanation as we will soon see. In particular his only mention of macrogonus was as Cereus macrogonus Schumann which was listed only as a synonym and C. macrogonus Salm-Dyck is nowhere to be found.
It may be pertinent, or perhaps a little impertinent, to suggest that this might conceivably have involved Backeberg's ongoing pronouncement that he had found the "lost" macrogonus when encountering peruvianus in Peru. Backeberg's suggestion that peruvianus would become an invalid species was perhaps a threat to Werdermann's then-ongoing desire to name peruvianus after Rose in his peculiar attempted reversion of the columnar cacti back into being Cereus species.
With that part of our stage set, let's move onward!


However, before leaving the subject of Flora Brasiliensis we can't neglect looking at the most famous image of macrogonus. The one which is not macrogonus.

post-900-0-43211200-1439603633_thumb.jpg

And we really should say something about some of the people involved with Flora Brasiliensis as otherwise it might just seem like it was a rather large book that Martius created.

Flora Brasiliensis involved 65 authors and took 66 years to complete. Completion outlasted the lifetimes of the first two of its editors.
Martius began editing in 1840. The editing was taken over by Eichler in 1868 and then by Urban in 1887. 
 The work was finally completed in 1906.

post-900-0-41170000-1439603727_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-65926000-1439603743_thumb.jpg

Carl Friedrich Philipp von Martius
=
Carolus Fridericus Philippus De Martius
April 17th, 1794 (Erlangen) - 
December 13th, 1868 (München)

August Wilhelm Eichler
=
Augustus Guilielmus Eichler
April 22, 1839 – March 2, 1887

post-900-0-76082100-1439603772_thumb.jpg

Ignatz Urban
1848–1931

post-900-0-74447300-1439603792_thumb.jpg

Urban was the editor in 1890 when Schumann's error went into print.

-----------------------------------

K. Schumann. 1899.
Gesamtbechreibung der Kakteen

post-900-0-33320200-1439603965_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-81741000-1439604076_thumb.jpg

"XVI. Reihe Macrogoni (Großrippige) K. Sch,

59. Cereus macrogonus S.-D.


Columnaris parce ramosus, costis 7 (8—9) rotundatis subcrenatis; aculeis radialibus 6—9 subulatis centralibus 1—3 paulo majoribus; flore cf. infra.


Wuchs baumförmig, wenig verästelt, bis 6 m hoch, in den Kulturen, ohne zu blühen, 2 m in der Höhe erreichend und bis 7 cm im Durchmesser. Stamm säulenformig, am Ende etwas verjüngt, gerundet und von Stacheln überragt. Rippen meist 7, seltener 8—9, dick, durch scharfe Furchen gesondert, wenig buchtig gegliedert, stumpf, mit konvexen Flanken, bis 2,5 cm hoch, bläulich grün, häufig bei den Areolen mit einer eingedrückten Linie verschen.
Areolen 1—1,5 cm auf einer Rippe voneinander entfernt, kreisund oder elliptisch, 5-6 mm im Durchmesser, mit kurzem, grauem Wollfilz bekleidet.
Randstacheln 6—9, strahlend oder wenig schräg aufrecht, stark pfriemlich, bis 2 cm lang, hornfarbig, später schwarz.
Mittelstacheln 1—3, etwas stärker und länger, mehr oder weniger deutlich nach vorn gerichtet.
Blüten seitlich, unterhalb der Spitze der Zweige, ganze Länge derselben 6—7 cm. Fruchtknoten dick, halbkugelförmig, unten nackt, weiter oben mit sehr kurzen, breiten, stumpfen Schuppen bekleidet. Blütenhülle glockig trichterförmig, größter Durchmesser 4—4,5 cm. Röhre breit, mit derben, kurzen, halbkreisförmigen, herablaufenden Schupen besetz, innen gefurcht. Äußere Blütenhüllblätter dreiseitig eiförmig, stumpf, am Rande verdünnt; innere weiß, oblong, spitzlich, verhältnismäßig dickfleischig. Staubgefäße aufrecht, kürzer als die Blütenhülle, Der Griffel überragt die Blüte hoch mit 10 aufrechten Narben. Frucht niedergedrückt kugelförmig, genabelt, bis 5 cm im Durchmesser und 3 cm hoch. Samen umgekehrt eiförmig, schwarz, glänzend, grubig punktiert. "

"XVI. Series Macrogoni (Large-ribbed) K. Sch,

59. Cereus macrogonus S.-D.


Columns sparingly branched, the ribs 7 (8-9) rounded subcrenate [i.e. less than round]; radial spines 6-9 subulate [i.e. awl-shaped] central spines 1-3 that are a little larger; flower cf. below.

Grows tree-shaped, with few branches, up to 6 meters high. In culture: nonflowering, 2 m in height and reaching up to 7 cm in diameter.
Stem columnar, at the end slightly tapered, rounded and surmounted by spines.
Ribs usually 7, rarely 8—9, thick, separated by sharp ridges, divided by small indentations, blunt, with convex flanks, to 2.5 cm high, bluish green, frequently marked at the Areole with an indented line.
Areoles are separated from each other by 1—1.5 cm, circular or elliptically, 5-6 mm in the diameter, with short, sparse, gray felt.
Radial spines 6-9, spreading or slightly oblique and upright, strongly subulate, to 2 cm long, horn-colored, later black.
Central spines 1-3, somewhat stronger and longer, more or less clearly directed forward.
Flowering on the side of the apex, below the tip of the branches, all the same length 6-7 cm.
Ovary thick, hemispherical, naked below, above covered with very short, wide, blunt scales.
Perianth bell-shaped to funnel-shaped, largest diameter 4-4.5 cm.
Receptacle is wide, covered with rough, short, semi-circular scales descending in size towards the base, furrowed inside.
Sepals are three-sided ovoids, blunt, thinning at the edges; petals are white, oblong, acuminate, relatively thick fleshed.
Stamens are erect, shorter than the perianth, the stigma rises high above the blossom with 10 upright stigma lobes.
Fruit depressed spherical umbilicate, to 5 cm in diameter and 3 cm high.
Seeds obovate, black, glossy, dotted pitted."


Macrogonus was noted to be nonflowering in its early descriptions. I would guess that Europe's brutal cold in the 1800s may have been responsible.

The lack of mention of hairs seems significant but this feature is only weakly expressed in a number of the known macrogonus examples. See for example the fruit in Krainz or the ovary on the picture of the flower bud on the Huntington specimen in the image section.

also on page 116

Schumann makes three particularly pertinent comments:
1. Weber’s questioning Brazil as its homeland and pointing to the Andes.
2. Weber’s flower observations of bristly hairy blossoms to 18 cm long.
3. Closeness in appearance to bridgesii, especially the brevispinus.

post-900-0-69245300-1439604194_thumb.jpg

" Cereus macrogonus Otto in Cact. hort. Dyck. 46 et 203; Lab. Mon. 352; Först. Handb. ed. II. 706; K. Sch. Fl. Br. 202 (macrógonus [griechisch (Greek] = grosswinklig, hier grossrippig).
? Cereus hexagonus Vell. Flor. Flum. V. t. 18, text. Netto, 194." [This suggestion as possible synonym is clearly not true. See details elsewhere herein.]

"(macrógonus [Greek] = large-angled, here [referring to the] large ribs)."

"Geographische Verbreitung

Im Staate Rio de Janeiro von Brasilien.
Anmerkung: Ist nach Dr. Weber nicht in Brasilien heimisch, sondern stammt vielleicht aus dem Andengebiet von Süd-Amerika. Er giebt die Länge der Blüte zu 18 cm an, und nach ihm ist die Röhre derselben borstig behaart; ich möchte jetzt auch glauben, daß er mit C. Bridgesii S.-D., besonders der Varietät brevispina, verwandt ist."

"Geographical distribution
In Rio de Janeiro in Brasil.
Comment: Dr. Weber suggests that it is not native to Brazil, but perhaps instead comes from the Andes region of South America. He gives the length of the blossom as up to 18 cm, and the tube as bristly and hairy; I would now also like to believe that it is synonymous with Cereus Bridgesii, particularly the variety brevispina." [Emphasis added.]

Notice that something really important occurred here even if the details are not actually included? Namely a macrogonus was witnessed flowering. That entry from Schumann might not take us to the finish line in this identification game but it does indicate it would be best to toss his macrogonus description appearing in Flora Brasiliensis into the trash and forget it.

Schumann comments only a bit further within his entry for Cereus bridgesii but does include a couple of interesting lines:

page 108
Var. β. brevispina K. Sch. hat im Gegensatz zum Typus eine größere Zahl von Rippen; Stacheln zahlreicher, aber beträchtlich kürzer, kaum über 6 mm lang und viel dünner.
[Var. brevispina K. Sch. has a larger number of rib in contrast to the type; many more spines, but considerably shorter, hardly over 6 mm long and much thinner. ]
Var. γ. lageniformis K. Sch. Stacheln auch zahlreicher, aber etwas langer, bis 8 mm; die Flaschenform ist wohl nur zufällig gewesen.
[Var. lageniformis K. Sch. Spines are also more numerous, but somewhat longer, up to 8 mm; the bottle form was probably only accidental.]

Geographische Verbreitung
Bolivien; wurde 1846 von Bridges eingeführt.
[bolivia: was introduced in 1846 by Bridges.]
Anmerkung: Die Varietät brevispina sieht sehr dem C. macrogonus S.-D. ähnlich und ist wahrscheinlich von ihm nicht verschieden.
[Comment: The variety brevispina appears very similar to the C. macrogonus and is probably not different from it. ]

page 107

post-900-0-34550300-1439604358_thumb.jpg

page 108

post-900-0-91680100-1439604667_thumb.jpg

Karl Moritz Schumann

post-900-0-28360800-1439604464.jpg

post-900-0-97424300-1439604481_thumb.jpg

That might have all nicely wrapped some of the parts together if not for Werdermann’s later contributions we mentioned above and will see farther below.

-----------------------------------

M. Gürke. 1907.
Monatsschrift für Kakteenkunde 17 (11): 161-166.
“Cacteae Florae Uruguayae, auctore J. Arechavaleta.”

Includes macrogonus but I have to wonder what I’m missing here. Macrogonus has not been reported in the flora of Uruguay.

post-900-0-47820200-1439604693_thumb.jpg

-----------------------------------

A. Berger. 1904.
Monatsschrift für Kakteenkunde

post-900-0-05129600-1439604929_thumb.jpg

190

"Cereus macrogonus S.-D.
von Alwin Berger, La Mortola

Weit über meterhohe und von der Basis aus verzweigte Stämme des Cereus macrogonus sind in den Gärten an der Riviera keine Seltenheit. Aber trotzdem war es bisher mir nicht geglückt, eine Blüte dieser Art zu Gesicht zu bekommen. In dem Parke, der das Stādtchen Monaco auf der hohen Felsenhalbinsel umgibt, und wo neben anderen Sukkulenten auch einige recht hübsche und gute Arten enthaltende Kakteensammlung sich befindet, blühte endlich in diesem Sommer ein fast 2 m hoher Stamm. Die Blüten erschienen seitlich nahe der Spitze zu mehreren aus verschiedenen Areolen. Mr. Gastaud, der Öbergärtner dieses Parkes, ein eifriger Sukkulentenfreund, hatte die Liebenswürdigkeit, mir diese Blumen zuzustellen.
In der „Gesamtbeschreibung" wird die Blume des Cereus macrogonus als absolut kahl bezeichnet, vermutlich nach einem irrtümlich dieser Art zugeschriebenen Herbarexemplar, wāhrend, wie an der selben Stelle augegeben wird, die Blumen nach Dr. Weber borstig behaart sind. Nach Schumann's Beschreibung würde Cereus macrogonus in die Verwandtschaft des Cer. peruvianus, Jamaracu, coerulescens, chalybaeus etc. gehōren, also zum Teil in Reihe XI., Compresso-Costati, nach der Weber'schen Behauptung aber in eine wesentlich andere Gruppe, in die Verwandtschaft von Cer. Bridgesii Salm. Es war mir nun möglich, über diesen Zweifel Gewissheit zu erhalten. Tatsächlich sind die Blüten borstig behaart. Die ganze Lānge derselben beträgt 15 cm. Der Fruchtknoten ist grün, kugelig, kaum 2 cm lang und breit, mit zahlreichen, sich dachziegelförmig deckenden, fleischigen, dreieckig zugespitzten und einwärtsgekrümmten Schuppen, aus deren Achsel lange braune und gekrāuselte Haare treten. Röhre grūn, 4½ cm lang, furchig und beschuppt, die Schuppen nach oben grōsser werdend und allmählich in die āusseren Hüllblätter übergehend, an den Spitzen breit dreieckig und dunkler gefärbt, in den Achseln gleichfalls mit zahlreichen braunen, gekrāuselten Harren. Äussere Blumenblätter lineallanzettlich, spitz, bräunlichgrün; innere gelblichweiss; innerste breiter, rein weiss, am Rande fein kraus gezähnelt und in ein kurzes Spitzchen ausgehend. Im Längsschnitt ist die Blumenkronröhre über dem Fruchtknoten nur 1 cm stark, darüber erweitert sie sich ziemlich plötzlich trichterfōrmig; von dieser Stelle gehen auch die Staubgefässe aus. Staubfäden weiss, oberste am Saum der Röhre in einem grünen Ring verwachsen; Antheren blassgelbe. Griffel so lang wie die Blumenkrone, weiss, in 14 fädliche, blassgelbe, fast 2 cm lange Narbenstrahlen endend. Die Blume ähnelt somit etwa der von Cer. Spachianus, besonders in bezug auf die Beschuppung und Behaarung des Fruchtknotens und der Kronröhre. Eine reife Frucht wurde nicht ausgebildet.
Eine entwickelte Blüte des Cereus Bridgesii Salm habe ich noch nicht untersuchen können, aber ich kann als sehr wahrscheinlich annehman, dass auch diese schwarz behaart ist und gewiss der des Cer. macrogonus ziemlich ähnlich sein muss."

Cereus macrogonus S.-D.
by Alwin Berger, La Mortola

" The columns of the Cereus macrogonus are well over a meter high and branching from their base in the gardens at the Riviera, where it is not any rarity. But nevertheless I had not previously succeeded to see a blossom from this species. In the park that surrounds Monaco on the high rock peninsula, next to other succulents where there is also a cactus collection containing some quite attractive and good species, an almost 2 m high column finally bloomed this summer. The blossoms appeared laterally nearly to the tip, out of several different areoles. Mr. Gastaud, the head gardener of this park, an enthusiastic succulent lover, had the kindness to deliver these flowers to me.
In the "Gesamtbeschreibung", the flower of the Cereus macrogonus is described as being absolutely nude, probably based on an erroneous herbarium specimen, however Dr. Weber's eyewitness account gives the flowers are bristly and hairy. Based on Schumann's description, Cereus macrogonus would be placed within the relationships of Cer. peruvianus, Jamaracu, coerulescens, chalybaeus etc. therefore in part in row XI., Compresso Costati. Following Weber’s statement however it would instead be placed in another significant group, and more closely related to Cer. Bridgesii Salm. It is now possible for me to resolve this doubt with certainty. The blossoms are actually bristly hairy. The flowers grow to 15 cm. The ovary are themselves green, spherical, hardly 2 cm long and extend, with a covering of numerous, roofing tile-shaped, fleshy, triangularly sharpened and inwardly crooked scales out of whose axils long brown hairs arise. The receptacle is 4½ cm long, furrowed and scaly, the scales towards the top gradually transitioning into and becoming the sepals, at their tips they extend triangularly and are darker colored, the shoulders are similar, with abundant curly brown hairs. External tepals linear-lanceate, tip, brownish green; internal tepals; more internally wider, pure white, at the edge are finely curly small serrations and it terminates into a short tip. In the lengthwise crosssection, the receptacle expands to go around the ovary with a 1 cm gap, around that region the stamens rather suddenly arise. Filaments are white, the uppermost at the edge of the tube are tangled and growing together in a green ring; Anthers are pale yellow. Stigma as long as the flower crown, white, in 14 lobes, pale yellow, stigma lobes almost 2 cm long. The flower resembles that of Cer. Spachianus, especially with regard to the scaliness and hair of the ovary and the crown tube. A ripe fruit was not seen.
I have not yet been able to examine the blossom of Cereus Bridgesii Salm, but I can assume it to be very probable that this too is blackly hairy and am certain it must be rather similar to that of the Cer. macrogonus. "

This paper contains an interesting observation that might relate to problems commented on with other workers such as Werdermann.
Namely Berger discusses Schumann's description and expresses having conceptual problems with Schumann's bare ovary (despite Berger not actually seeing an example of the fruit and basing his conclusions on the hairs of the flower).
As Schumann did mention Weber's observations about bristly hairy flowers so there is something unclear here concerning Berger's comment. This is going to be more clear and at least partially resolvable once we get into the photo section.

-----------------------------------

A. Berger. 1905.
Missouri Botanical Garden. Sixteenth Annual Report, 73-86.

This paper marked the birth of the idea of Trichocereus.

post-900-0-68944800-1439605125_thumb.jpg

The most pertinent comment in this paper is:
"The description of the flower of Cereus macrogonus Salm in K. Schumann's Monographia is not correct; see Monatsschrift für Kakteenkuude, 1904, p. 190."

Alwin Berger

post-900-0-45922200-1439605253_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-08782100-1439605293_thumb.jpg

-----------------------------------

V. Riccobono. 1909.
Bollettino delle R[eale] Orto Botanico di Palermo. 8: 236-237.

Vicenzo Riccobono elevated Berger's Trichocereus to the genus level.

post-900-0-58391800-1439605461_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-45068300-1439605521_thumb.jpg

Vincenzo Riccobono 1909 
Bollettino delle R[eale] Orto Botanico di Palermo. 8: 236-237. 
 [i.e. Bollettino del R. Orto Botanico e Giardino Coloniale]
On page 236
" Sp. 1. ° Trichocereus macrogonus (BERG. 1. c, p. 83).

Sinonimi: Cereus macrogonus, OTTO in Cact. hort. Dyck. 40 et 203.
— LAB. Monog. Cact. p. 862, — K. SCHUMANN. Monog. Cact. p. 115.

 Fusto alto m. 3, ramoso in busso con rami tortuosi, ascendenti, che misurano l'altezza da m. 1 a m. 2, verde-scuro, nella nuova vegetazione cenerino, con 7–8 coste convesse, rotondate, leggermente sinuate e con una linea a forma di V sopra le areole: areole distanti fra di loro cm. 2, provviste di tomento grigio e 8–10 spine brune, radiali, che variano in lunghezza da mill. 5 a cm. 2, una centrale, spesso due, lunghe 4 cm., le spine nella nuova vegetazione sono giallo-brune e di lunghezza maggiore, specialmente la centrale che si allunga fino a cm. 10 circa.
 Fiori inodori, imbutiformi, del diam. del lembo a completo sbocciamento di cm. 12; tubo lungo cm. 7, verde, solcato squamoso e lanugginoso, squame lungo il tubo brevi, quelle presso le lacinie esterne oblungo-lanceolate; ovario con squame embriciate, verdi provviste di lunga lanuggine alla base."

On page 237
" Lacinie in piú serie, le esterne oblungo-lanceolate verde-pallido, piú scure verso l'apice, le interne obovate, bianco-puro, con breve mucrone molle.
 Stami con filamenti bianco-verdastri, che non oltrepassano il lembo del fiore, antere bianco-giallognole: pistillo con stilo bianco-verdognolo, che oltrepassa per poco gli stami e con stimma a 15 divisioni lineari giallognole.
 Bacca verde-oscura, sferica del diam. di cm. 5 con base dilatata ed appiattita, squamosa, squame embriciate con apice libero e molta lana lunga nera che le avvolge; mesocarpio bianco con piccoli e molti semi neri.
 Florisce di notte: Settembre.
 PATRIA : Ande.
 OSSERVAZIONI : La pianta qui fiorita è un bellissimo esemplare caratteristico, i cui rami si allungano, curvandosi pel troppo peso sul suolo, poscia, rialzandosi verticalmente, formano delle bellissime e robuste colonne in vicinanza del fusto principale. Questo speciale carattere non fu dai diversi autori accennato, forse perché descrissero piante troppo giovani. "

Vincenzo Riccobono 1909 
Bollettino delle R[eale] Orto Botanico di Palermo. 8: 236-237.

Page 236
" Stem 3 m high, branching at base with branches winding, ascending, measuring 1 to 2 meters in length, dark-green, the new vegetation appears ashy, with 7-8 convex rib, plump, slightly sinuate and bearing a line in a V-shape above the areoles: areoles separated by 2 cm from each other, equipped with gray wool and 8-10 brown radial spines, ranging in length from 5 mm to 2 cm, one central spine, often two, up to 4 cm long, New spines are yellow-brown and of greater length, especially in the center of the plant, and can grow to approximately 10 cm long. Flowers are odorless, funnel-shaped, 12 cm in diameter, the bloom opening widely; the 7 cm long tube is green, furrowed and bears wooly scales, the scales along the tube are short, those at the larger divisions are oblong-lanceolate; ovary is imbricately scaled, green bearing long hairs. "

On page 237
" Hairs [are present] in most series [of the sepals], the outer are oblong-lanceolate pale-green, and darker towards their apex, the internal obovate, pure-white, with short acuminate tips. Stamens with greenish-white filaments, not exceeding the flap flower, anthers white-yellowish: pistil with white-greenish style, this almost passes the stamens and stigma has 15 linear yellowish lobes. Fruit is dark green, spherical, 5 cm in diameter with the base dilated and flattened, scaly, apex is bare with imbricate scales and very long black wool surrounding them; the mesocarp is white with small black seeds.
Flowering at night: September.
HOMELAND: Andes.
OBSERVATIONS: The plant that has flowered here is a beautiful characteristic specimen, whose branches stretch, bending under too much weight to the ground, afterwards rising vertically, forming beautiful and sturdy columns in the vicinity of the main stem. This special character was not mentioned by different authors, perhaps because they described too young of plants."

Among the valuable points included within this paper was introduction of the growth habit of a large adult specimen. This is also a feature that is in alignment with a number of Trichocereus species including T. peruvianus and T. lucernatus, and is expressed by the growth exhibited by the "Trichocereus macrogonus" at the Huntington (below).

post-900-0-47800700-1439605610_thumb.jpg

-----------------------------------

N. L. Britton & J. N. Rose. 1920.
The Cactaceae. Vol. 2

Nathaniel Lord Britton (at work) - L; Joseph Nelson Rose - R

post-900-0-76940700-1439613374_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-62497800-1439613478_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-30353300-1439613513_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16834000-1439613539_thumb.jpg

p. 136
" Trichocereus macrogonus (Salm-Dyck) Riccobono, Boll. R. Orto. Bot. Palermo 8: 236. 1909

Cereus macrogonus Salm-Dyck, Cact. Hort. Dyck Cult. 1849: 203. 1850
Eriocereus tephracanthus Riccobono, Boll. R. Ort. Bot. Palermo 8: 244. 1909 "

" Stem probably tall, stout, but in cultivation often slender, bluish green, especially on young growth; ribs usually 7, low and rounded, 1.5 cm high, separated by acute intervals; areoles large, 1.5 to 2 cm apart; spines several from an areole, acicular, brown; radial spines 5 to 8 mm long; central spine about 2 cm long; flower probably large and white; fruit unknown.
Type locality: Not cited.
Distribution: South America, but not known definitely in the wild state."

post-900-0-17415800-1439613590_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-71977400-1439613629_thumb.jpg

also on page 136
" This species is represented in the New York Botanical Garden by a live specimen from Kew, which we consider typical. Salm-Dyck described it from specimens growing in the Botanical Garden at Berlin but did not know their origin. Schumann figured what he supposed to be it in the Flora Brasiliensis, referring it to Brazil; his plant is from the Province of Rio de Janiero, collected by Glaziou, and is undoubtably Cephalocereus arrabidae.
Cereus tetracanthus Labouret (Rev. Hort. IV. 4: 25. 1855) and Cereus tephracanthus bolivianus Weber (Schumann, Gesambt. Kakteen 81. 1897 [sIC should read 1899) are probably of this relationship; both forms come from Bolivia. Rümpler (Förster, Handb. Cact. ed. 2, 712. 1885) says the former came from Chuquisaca, Bolivia. An earlier reference (Steudel, Nom. ed. 2. 1: 336. 1840) but of slightly different spelling cites Link & Otto as authors of this name, but the species was not described. To one of these forms may belong the plant in the New York Botanical Garden (No. 6231), obtained from M. Simon, St. Ouen, Paris, in 1901, which is called Cereus bolivianus. The last name, first credited to Weber (Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 12: 21. 1902), is occasionally met in the literature.
Cereus hempelianus Bauer (Monatsschr Kakteenk 17: 55. 1907) is, according to F. Fobe, only a stout, bluish-green variety of C. macrogonus. "

Two comments on that:
1. re: "An earlier reference (Steudel, Nom. ed. 2. 1: 336. 1840) but of slightly different spelling cites Link & Otto as authors of this name, but the species was not described. "
The name given in Steudel 1840 was Cereus tephracanthus Link & Otto.
2. What Fobe actually said was "[...] an excellent grafting stock; but there are two forms of them. The more slender one, in any case is the real Cereus macrogonus and there is a stronger, more blue-green variety. [...] Mr. Bauer in Copitz was of the opinion that the latter was a special kind [...]. These can not be used as a grafting stock, even the easy growing varieties [...] have a short life on it."

-----------------------------------

E. Schelle. 1926.
Kakteen.
Tübingen: A. Fischer Vlg.

post-900-0-28126700-1439613739_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-80671700-1439613839_thumb.jpg

"16. Reihe: Macrogoni, großrippige.

Cereus macrogonus S.-D. Großrippiger S. Brasilien.
Als Pfropfunterlage oft benützte, wenig verästelte, hoch werdende, blaulichgrüne Art mit etwas spitz zulaufenden Trieben. Die durch scharfe Furchen getrennten 7 (bis 9) dicken, 2 ½ cm hohen Rippen haben graufilzige, 1 ½ cm entfernt stehende Stachelpolster, welche meist durch eine grüne Bogenlinie verbunden sind. Von den Stacheln sind 6-9 pfriemliche, 2 cm lange, graue Randstacheln und 1-3 etwas stärkere und längere Mittelstacheln. Die 7 : 4 ½ cm großen Blüten sind ganz innen weiß, nach außen gelblichweiß, außen grün. Fruchtknoten und geriefte Röhre beschuppt und borstig behaart. Fäden weiß, Beutel gelblich, Griffel gelbweiß, 14 blaßgelbe Narben.
Als Formen gehen:
Cer. macrog. cristatus.
Syn.: Cer. macrog. monstrosus Hort.
Cer. macrog. variegatus Hort. "


"Cereus macrogonus S.-D. Large-ribbed S. Brazil.
Often used as a grafting stock, few branches, tall, bluish-green species with somewhat fewer spines around the tip of the column. [The ribs] are separated by sharp ridges, 7 (to 9) thick ribs, 2-½ cm high , have grey-felted areoles, separated by 1-½ cm, which are usually connected with a green curving line. The radial spines are 6-9 and subulate (awl-shaped), 2 cm long, gray, and there are 1-3 somewhat stronger and longer central spines. The 7: 4-½ cm large flowers are completely white inside, outside yellowish white, green on the sepals. Scaly ovary and fluted tube that is hairy and bristly. Filaments white, yellow anthers, stigma yellow white, 14 pale yellow lobes.
Known forms include:
Cereus macrogonus cristatus.
Synonym: Cereus macrogonus monstrosus Hort.
Cereus macrogonus variegatus Hort. "

Ernst Schelle
1864-1945

I still need to also locate a copy of Schelle's 1905 Handbuch der kakteenkultur.

-----------------------------------

A. Berger. 1929.
Kakteen

post-900-0-03376900-1439613984_thumb.jpg

" Stämme aufrecht, 2-3 m hoch, 7-8 cm dick, bläulichgrün, namentlich im Neutrieb. Rippen 7, (8-9), stumpf, an den Seiten gewölbt, die Furchen scharf. Areolen 1,5-2 cm entfernt, grau-filzig; Stacheln braun, randständige 6-9, spreizend, bis 2 cm lang, Mittel stacheln 1-3, kräftiger. Blüten ähnlich den vorigen, weiß, zu 2-4 am Scheitel.
Südamerika.
Wird wie voriger wegen seiner schönen blaugrauen Farbe als Zierstück gezogen und auchs als Propfunterlage verwendet. "


" Stems erect, 2-3 m tall, 7-8 cm thick, bluish-green, particularly in new growth. Ribs 7, (8-9), blunt, curved at the sides, the furrows sharp. Areoles separated by 1.5-2 cm, wooly-gray; Spines brown, radial spines 6-9, spreading, to 2 cm long, central spines 1-3, stronger. Flowers similar to the previous, white, 2-4 are borne at the apex.
South America.
Because of its beautiful blue-gray color it is deployed as ornamental specimens and it used as a stock in grafting. "

Earlier in that same work by Berger is this interesting picture:

post-900-0-98643300-1439614073_thumb.jpg

I suspect that very few cactophiles will have any objections to my recognizing that broadly ribbed stock in the far left-hand pot and the cut tip to its front right as our friend macrogonus?

-----------------------------------

A.V. Frič. 1931-1932.
Kakteenjäger zu hause.

There are some interesting broadly ribbed columnars being used for grafting stock in some of the plants below that surely include Cereus macrogonus.

post-900-0-69419600-1439614165_thumb.jpg

Alberto Vojtech Frič
8 September 1882 (Prague) – 4 December 1944 (Prague)

post-900-0-47894800-1439614193.jpg

(This image was found online)

AV Frič was one of history's truly great humans.

-----------------------------------

To be continued.

When we return this story is about to stick a toe into the twilight zone.

post-900-0-31136000-1439603226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-24983100-1439603263_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39450200-1439603315_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-97265600-1439603527_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-43211200-1439603633_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-41170000-1439603727_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-65926000-1439603743_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-76082100-1439603772_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-74447300-1439603792_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-33320200-1439603965_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-81741000-1439604076_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69245300-1439604194_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-34550300-1439604358_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-28360800-1439604464.jpg

post-900-0-97424300-1439604481_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-91680100-1439604667_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47820200-1439604693_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-05129600-1439604929_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-68944800-1439605125_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-45922200-1439605253_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-08782100-1439605293_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-58391800-1439605461_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-45068300-1439605521_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47800700-1439605610_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-76940700-1439613374_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-62497800-1439613478_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-30353300-1439613513_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16834000-1439613539_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17415800-1439613590_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-71977400-1439613629_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-28126700-1439613739_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-80671700-1439613839_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-03376900-1439613984_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-98643300-1439614073_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69419600-1439614165_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47894800-1439614193.jpg

post-900-0-31136000-1439603226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-24983100-1439603263_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39450200-1439603315_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-97265600-1439603527_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-43211200-1439603633_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-41170000-1439603727_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-65926000-1439603743_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-76082100-1439603772_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-74447300-1439603792_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-33320200-1439603965_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-81741000-1439604076_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69245300-1439604194_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-34550300-1439604358_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-28360800-1439604464.jpg

post-900-0-97424300-1439604481_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-91680100-1439604667_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47820200-1439604693_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-05129600-1439604929_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-68944800-1439605125_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-45922200-1439605253_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-08782100-1439605293_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-58391800-1439605461_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-45068300-1439605521_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47800700-1439605610_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-76940700-1439613374_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-62497800-1439613478_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-30353300-1439613513_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16834000-1439613539_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17415800-1439613590_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-71977400-1439613629_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-28126700-1439613739_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-80671700-1439613839_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-03376900-1439613984_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-98643300-1439614073_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69419600-1439614165_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47894800-1439614193.jpg

Edited by trucha
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thankyou Trucha for continuing to provide cactus reading to boggle the mind and furnish the ever inquisitive cactophile members that frequent this forum. I for one , has unabashedly enjoyed your research commentary because form my point of view-as a total kaktoose amateur - is always looking to expand my understanding of this biology.

I remember sitting there at the last outdoor ega in australia and listening to your lecture/presentation of 'How to graft'.

Small tent out of the sun, sitting on the grass and totally blew me away how you encouraged people to come up and 'do a graft'.

You helped them all and as they left the table with wide grin smiles beaming, i turned to toby and said, "Fuck, that was really cool. "

I went home with heaps more cactus and my fun for this plant expanded exponentially.

SO, yeah, you have a passion for this plant that gets other people listening.

Thanks mang.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

C. Backeberg (& E. Werdermann). 1931.
Neue Kakteen

post-900-0-65271100-1439682383_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16050600-1439682427_thumb.jpg

There are three things to notice.
Trichocereus peruvianus (Cereus rosei) and Cereus macrogonus are not given as synonyms.
In fact, Cereus macrogonus Salm-Dyck is not mentioned at all. (However, see Werdermann 1933)
The brevispinus bridgesii is herein being suggested by Backeberg to be synonymous with pachanoi in fascinating contrast to Schumann's comment about wanting to consider it to be the same as macrogonus. The thing to recall is that prior to pachanoi's appearance, bridgesii and macrogonus where the horticultural plants that were most similar to pachanoi.


post-900-0-77388100-1439682445_thumb.jpg

Photograph of Werdermann found in Google images.

post-900-0-96729100-1439682469.jpg

Erich Werdermann at the 1950 IOS Congress

-----------------------------------

E. Werdermann. 1933.
Brasilien und seine Säulenkakteen.

Erich Werdermann added what seems like an odd twist to the story. However, despite the confusion introduced with the assigned synonym not being more clearly given as "sensu" Schumann in Martius, Flora Brasiliensis, Werdermann was correct in assigning the Flora Brasiliensis entry to this species as his choice of epithet in C. macrogonus "K. Schum. auf Martius" and "C. macrogonus K. Schum." indicates that he did not equate it with C. macrogonus Salm-Dyck. It is commonly believed that the existence of this synonym list meant that Werdermann considered C. macrogonus itself to be a synonym of the Pilocereus but I would suggest that he did not or the name given as a synonym (in both the list and in the drawing) would have included either C. macrogonus Salm-Dyck or C. macrogonus Otto.


p. 98

post-900-0-32632500-1439682539_thumb.jpg

p. 108

post-900-0-51653900-1439682592_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-32398800-1439682623_thumb.jpg

Erich Werdermann on a field trip.


-----------------------------------

Catalogue Jahandiez. 1934.
page 17.

France.

Offered Cereus macrogonus plants for sale.

post-900-0-75979300-1439682658_thumb.jpg


-----------------------------------

Kakteenkunde. 1934.

post-900-0-36528900-1439682699_thumb.jpg

A few of these grafting stocks have interestingly broad ribbing and are undoubtedly macrogonus.
Compare to the column pictured in Kreuzinger 1935 (below) and those in Fric 1931-1932 (above)
Notice also that stout macrogonoid/pachanoid columnar towards the back left? Is that a very early pachanoi or is that perhaps the intriguing Hempelianus?


-----------------------------------

H. Blossfeld. 1935.
Harry Blossfeld’s 1935 expedition

post-900-0-45253000-1439682773_thumb.jpg

Harry Blossfeld’s 1935(-1937) South American Expedition was said to have been financed by selling 12 shares. Each share was said to guarantee the backer a thousand specimens of living plants.

At least three of those shares are believed to have ended up in Victoria, Australia.

One of those shares was said to have been purchased by Robert Field’s father and the resulting offspring were sold through Field’s Cactus Nursery. (Robert Field was my source for this information.)

The macrogonus shown below is still living in Field’s collection. It is also featured in the cover image (notice the occasional prostrate branches there as were mentioned in Riccobono's account?) and there are also images in the photo section. [Trichoserious.net has a nice selection of additional images of Field's plant.]

Some unanswered questions I can't answer arise in that macrogonus is not listed among the collections of Blossfeld. Trichocereus rosei and T. pachanoi are not on it either.

That might not mean anything.

I have only been able to locate two publications about the collection trip. Neither of which sheds very much (if any) light on any of the Trichocereus species he collected in Ecuador, Peru or Bolivia. It is clear that his trip was plotted based on known Type localities but the actual available details are sparse. It is clear however he visited Huancabamba and also the Rio Rimac in Peru but it would be purely supposition to say that that he collected his pachanoi and peruvianus from those locations.


Harry Bloßfeldt 1936 Kakteenkunde 2: 24-27, "Eine Kakteen-Sammelreise in Südamerika I." ["A cactus-collecting trip in South America."]

3: 41-43, "Eine Kakteen-Sammelreise in Südamerika II."

4: 61-65, "Eine Kakteen-Sammelreise in Südamerika III."

5: 84-89, "Eine Kakteen-Sammelreise in Südamerika IV."

6: 110-112, "Eine Kakteen-Sammelreise in Südamerika V."

In part 1

"Nachdem die Fundorte der verschiedenen Arten auf einer großen Landkarte Südamerikas abgesteckt waren, ergab sich eine Reiseroute von etwa 20000 km Luftlinie, wenn der Reiseweg durch Argentinien, Bolivien, Peru, Equador, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay und Brasilien genommen wurde. Angesichts der Größe dieses Planes mußte ich den Reiseweg auf die Hauptverbreitungsgebiete beschränken. Aber selbst dieser Plant Musste im Verlauf der Reise mehrmals geändert werden, wenn wir durch Zufall neue Fundgebiete entdeckten, deren gründliche Erforschung uns dann oft weit vom vorgestckten Weg abführte. Die leicht zugänglichen Kakteengebiete längs der Hauptlinien der Eisenbahn waren schon von anderen Kakteensammlern „abgegrast". "

"After the original localities of various species were plotted on a large map of South America, there was an itinerary of about 20,000 km as the crow flies for the route taken through Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil. Given the size of the plan I had to restrict the route to the main type localities. But even this plan had to be changed during the trip several times when we discovered new collection sites by accident, the thorough research of which then often led us far away from easily travelled routes. The type localities reported by other cacti collectors along the main lines of the railroad were "selectively visited". "

Part 2 places Blossfeld at Puna, Peru.


A few more tidbits of information about the points Blossfeld visited in Peru appeared around a decade later.

Harry Blossfeld 1946 Cactus & Succulent Journal, of America, 18 (10): 153–155. Given in the literature titled “Field list of Blossfeld collections.” but the print copy is entitled "Cactus Collecting Trip 1935-1937 Argentina - Bolivia - Peru - Paraguay - Uruguay."

Reported collecting No 77 (Cereus of the Harrisia type) near Matucana in Central Peru.

Reported collecting No 79 (similar to Cereus acranthus) near Lima buried in sand dunes.

Reported collecting No 84 (Binghamia climaxantha) in the Rimac Valley.

Reported collecting No 85 "Lobivia species" near La Majorada, Mataro River, Central Eastern Peru.

Reported collecting No 86 (Binghamia Humboldtii) at Huancabamba in Northern Peru.

Reported collecting No 87 (Lemaireocereus chlorocarpus) near Jaen in Northern Peru.

The only Trichocereus species Blossfeld lists that was mentioned within our discussions was as No. 83 -- Cereus bridgesii said to have been collected at Tarija in Southern Bolivia (p 155)

Blossfeld's consistent use of the name Cereus and not Trichocereus suggests Field probably received his two peruvianus lineages under the name Cereus rosei.

In an intriguing note Blossfeld commented on having an accident that caused the total loss of "hundreds of sheets of herbarium material along with accompanying notes". This appears with item 48 in Argentina but it is not made clear where the affected specimens had been collected.


post-900-0-53453400-1439682811_thumb.jpg


-----------------------------------

K. Kreuzinger. 1935.
Verzeichnis amerikanischer under anderer Sukkulenten mit Revision der Systematik der Kakteen

In 1935, on page 38, a macrogonus monstrose was listed by Kreuzinger

post-900-0-26268900-1439682858_thumb.jpg

There is a monstrose/fasciate that certainly appears to be macrogonus which is is still available in Germany. Images are in the photo section.

There is also an interesting image in this catalog. Notably the Trichocereus to the far left in this collection of columnars.

post-900-0-33941900-1439682921_thumb.jpg

Kurt G. Kreuzinger was closely associated with Fric and his work.

There are a couple of interesting photos appearing in Backeberg 1930; one of those (below) also appears in a Kreuzinger catalog labelled “A.V. Frič 1927” (who Backeberg was referring to in 1930 as “my friend Frič”).
Things changed for the worse when Frič presented his own views rather than following what was coming from Berlin.

post-900-0-02534400-1439683021_thumb.jpg


-----------------------------------

Guillaumin Cactees. 1935.

page 60

post-900-0-02282300-1439683064_thumb.jpg

page 61

post-900-0-42982500-1439683115_thumb.jpg

"C macrogonus Salm-Dyck, de l'Amérique du Sud sans patrie précise, introduit avant 1849: tige vert glaucescent surtout à l'état jeune, à 7-8 côtes arrondies, peu élevéees, aiguillons courts, bruns; fleurs blanches, durant deux jours, calice écailleux couvert de soies."

"C macrogonus Salm-Dyck, South American but lacking a specific country, introduced before 1849: green stem is glaucescent especially when young, 7-8 rounded ribs, slightly elevated, short spines, brown; white flowers, for two days, scaly receptacle covered with bristles."

Also included was an interesting photo of some grafted plants.

post-900-0-70244000-1439683147_thumb.jpg

-----------------------------------

C. Backeberg & F. M. Knuth. 1936.
Kaktus-ABC
(This work was published in 1936 but had been dated 1935 to try to make it appear as if Backeberg had not been preceded in print by Frič in Kreuzinger 1935. Backeberg engaged in such shenanigans seemingly as a result of his desire to dominate the world of cactus taxonomy.)

Curt Backeberg & Frederik Marcus Knuth made some interesting comments concerning his view of macrogonus and peruvianus.

p 203

post-900-0-98963500-1439683180_thumb.jpg

" Indtil 3 m høj, opret, med afrundede Ribber; Skuddene indtil 8 cm tykke, blaagrønne; Areolerne 2 cm fra hinaden, med graa Filt; 6-9 straalestillede, indtil 2 cm lange Midtorne; 1-3 kraftige Midtertorne. Blomsten circa 18 cm lang, hvid. -- Hjemsted ukendt.
Velkendt, smuk Art, meget anvendt som Podeunderlag. Werdermann answer den for identisk med Pilocer arrabidae, hvilket ikke er rigtigt, da denne har haarede Skudspidser.
T. peruvianus Br & R 1920. -- Cereus Roseanus Werd. 1931. -- Er muligvis identisk; i saa Fald har man altsaa omsider fastslaaet dens Forekomst: Peru, Matucana, 2100 m H.

" Up to 3 m high, erect, with rounded ribs; Stems up to 8 cm thick, blue-green; Areoles separated by 2 cm, with grey felt; 6-9 radial spines, centrals up to 2 cm long; 1-3 strong central spines. Flower about 18 cm long, white. - Homeland unknown.
Well-known, beautiful species, widely used as a grafting stock. Werdermann gave as a synonym of Pilocer arrabidae, which is not true, as this lacks hairy tips on the shoots.
T. peruvianus Br & R 1920 - Cereus Roseanus Werd. 1931. - This may be identical; in that case it has thus finally established its origin: Peru, Matucana, 2100 m elevation. "

Backeberg also had some additional words concerning the confusion from Werdermann post Schumann.

p 309

post-900-0-79147600-1439683279_thumb.jpg

"Cereus macrogonus Werd. syn."
"Werdermann betragter denne Art som identisk med Trichocer. macrogonus, formentlig paa Grund af det forkerte Billede i Flora Brasiliensis 42; de to Arter har intet med hinanden at gøre; sidstnævnte Art udvikler aldrig Uld; den er blaadugget og har væsentligt rundere Ribber. Det er ogsaa en Fejltagelse af Werdermann, paa Grundlag af de forkerte Afbildninger hos Vellozo at still Cactus hexagonus L. og Cactus heptagonus Vell. hertil."

"Cereus macrogonus Werd. syn. "
"Werdermann thought this species was identical with Trichocer. macrogonus, presumably based on the wrong picture in Flora Brasiliensis 4 [2]; the two species have nothing to do with each other; the latter species never develops wool; it is glaucous, blue-stained and has substantially rounded ribs. There is also another oversight of Werdermann, his listing of Vellozo's pictures of Cactus hexagonus L. and Cactus heptagonus Vell. as synonyms is not correct."

(Steudel 1840 had given both of those latter names as synonyms for Cereus peruvianus.)


-----------------------------------

C. Backeberg. 1937.
Blätter für Kakteenforschung 4: 9.
Backeberg makes an interesting comment concerning T. macrogonus.

post-900-0-72236500-1439683342_thumb.jpg

Concerning his encountering that flowering T. peruvianus in the Peruvian highlands near Matucana:

"This plant is probably identical with the lost Trichc. macrogonus, for even seedlings are just the same. THen the above name [Trichocereus peruvianus] becomes invalid."

post-900-0-34697300-1439683387_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-64945200-1439683400_thumb.jpg

Rimac river & valley map from Google


-----------------------------------

C. Backeberg. 1941.
Kakteenkunde: 16-20.
“Seltene Cereen des Westandinen Suedamerica.”

post-900-0-37519100-1439683488_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-18220500-1439684106_thumb.jpg

" Als ich im Jahre 1931 in das Tal von Matucana hinaufkam, woher die Art von Rose als in etwa 2100 m vorkommend beschrieben wurde, und im Morgonnebel die blaugrünen, dicken Säulen in reichem Blütenschmuck sah (siehe Abbildung), manche von ihnen auf der Erde herumkreichend und sich an den Enden wieder aufrichtend, da kam ich sofort auf die Vermutung, daß hier das Vorkommen des Cereus macrogonus S.-D. endlich entdeck worden sei, dessen Heimat als „Im Staate Rio de Janeiro von Brasilien‟ angegeben war, und zwar irrtümlich, so daß schon Weber schrieb, er sei dort nicht beimisch, sondern veilleicht im Andengebiet von Südamerika. Der geniale Kakteenkenner hat sich in seiner Vermutung nicht getäuscht, zumal eine solche Annahme nahelag, da die ähnlich Trichocereus bridgesii ebenfalls dort vorkommen, wie überhaupt die ganze Trichocereus-Gattung.
Nach den dicken Originalpflanzen war es mir aber noch nicht möglich, mit Sicherheit festzustellen, ob es sich um den Cereus macrogonus S.-D. handelte; das konnten erst aus Samen aufgezogene Kulturpflanzen bei uns befindlichen C. macrogonus zu dem richtigen Urteil zu kommen.
So vergingen die Jahre. Inzwischen erhielt die Pflanze noch einmal einen neuen Namen: Cereus Rosei Werd nom nov 1931 (in Backeberg: Neue Kakteen), und zwar zu jener Zeit, als die amerikanishen Gattungen bei uns noch nicht anerkannt waren. Später hat sich Werdermann selbt für den Gebrauch der Gattung Trichocereus entschieden, so daß die interimistischen Namen wieder verschwanden.
Die Kulturpflanzen zeigen nun genau 7 Rippen, wie sie für C. macrogonus angegeben werden, ferner stimmen die Angaben über die Areolen überein, auch die Rand und Mittelstachelzahl sowie deren Farbe und vor allem deren Länge, so daß keinesfalls, wie Schumann meinte, mit dem Namen C. macrogonus eine Form des C. bridgesii vorgelegen hat, der weniger Rippern und Stacheln aufweist. Außerdem hat Salm-Dyck auch diesen letzteren beschrieben und wird kaum aus der Abweichung einer Pflanze eine weiter Art gemacht. Zudem sicht der C. macrogonus auch wesentlich anders aus als der C. bridgesii, mit dem er nicht im üblichen Sinne "verwandt" sein kann, wie Schumann annahm. Wenn man bei diesen Cereen nämlich von Verwandtschaft spricht, so muß man darin mehr sehen als eine Arten verwandtschaft, da sich die einzelnen Trichocereus-Arten sowieso schon stark ähneln; dann kann man damit nur meinen, daß es sich möglicherweise um eine Artzugehörigkeit handelt, denn verwandt miteinander sind selbtverständlich die Trichocereus bridgesii, cuzcoensis, knuthianus, macrogonus und pachanoi, ja sie sind sogar einander ähnlich, haben aber doch irgendwie ein gut unterscheidendes Merkmal, sei es nun die Rippen- bzw. Stacheln oder deren Farbe, die Form der Rippe usw.
Nach allen Vergleichen dürfte einwandfrei feststehen, daß es sich bei dem Trichocereus peruvianus und dem Trichocereus macrogonus um ein und dieselbe Art handelt.
Der irrtümliche Standort "Im Staate Rio de Janeiro" stammt von Schumann; Salm-Dyck bescribe die Art nach einem Exemplar, das im Botanischen Garten von Dahlem stand, ohne ihren Ursprung zu kennen.
Rose endlich stellt zu Trichoc macrogonus irrtümlich den Roseocereus (Eriocereus) tephracanthus [(Lab.) Ricc.] Bckbg aus Ostbolivien (Cochabamba-Gebiet).
Die Synonymie der Art lautet nach alledem:
Trichocereus macrogonus (S.-D.) Ricc.
Trichocereus peruvianus Br. & R.
Cereus Rosei Werd.
Damit ist die Herkunft der bei uns seit langem als Unterlage benutzten Pflanze einwandfrie geklärt: Sie Stammt aus dem zentralperuanischen Matucana-Tal, aus etwa 2000 m über dem Meere."

" Another rare Cereus species, at least its geographical region of occurrence needs more study, is the Trichocereus peruvianus Br. & R.
When I went up into the valley of Matucana in 1931, where the species of Rose had been described as occurring at about 2100 m, and in the early morning's mist I saw the blue-green, thick columns in a rich array (see figure), some of them reaching back to the earth and then straightening up again at the tip, I immediately came to the assumption that here the presence of Cereus macrogonus was finally DISCOVERED. Its home appeared mistakenly given as "In the state of Rio de Janeiro of Brazil" , even though Weber wrote that it was not there from there but came from the Andean region of South America. The brilliant cacti-expert was not mistaken in his assumption, especially since such an assumption was obvious as similarly Trichocereus bridgesii also occurs there, as indeed does the entire Trichocereus genus.
Based on the stout original plant it was not possible for me to determine with any certainty the question of Cereus macrogonus [s.-D.]; they could only be reared from seed obtained from cultivated plants leaving any proper judgment to await the finding of C macrogonus.
So the years went by. Meanwhile, the plant was again given a new name: Cereus Rosei Werd nom Nov 1931 (in Backeberg: Neue Kakteen) as, at that time, the American genera were not yet accepted. Later Werdermann opted for the use of the genus Trichocereus, so the interim name has disappeared.
The cultivated plants now show exactly 7 ribs, the description of C. macrogonus can be further specified as agreeing in the details of the areoles, the middle and central spine numbers, their colors and especially the length, so that in no way, as Schumann claimed, can the name C. macrogonus be considered to be a form of C. bridgesii, which has less ribs and spines. Moreover, Salm-Dyck has also described this latter and it was barely acknowledged [by Schumann] that he [salm-Dyck] considered it to be a separate species. In addition the appearance of C. macrogonus is also significantly different from that of C. bridgesii, with which it cannot be accepted as being "related"in the usual sense, such as Schumann assumed. Namely, when speaking of relationships within these Cerei, there must be in more than one way that one evaluates those Trichocereus relatives that strongly resemble each other; only then can one say what may constitute a specific identity, as related to each other are selbtverständlich the Trichocereus bridgesii, cuzcoensis, knuthianus, macrogonus and pachanoi, yes they are even similar to each other, but they all have some good distinguishing feature, be it is variously the ribs or spines or the color, the shape of the rib etc.
After all comparisons, it seems clear beyond doubt that the Trichocereus peruvianus and the Trichocereus macrogonus are one and the same species.
The erroneous location "In the state of Rio de Janeiro" comes from Schumann; Salm-Dyck described the species from a specimen, which were present in the botanical garden of Dahlem, without knowing the origin.
Finally, Rose erroneously related Roseocereus (Eriocereus) tephracanthus [(Lab.) Ricc.] Bckbg from eastern Bolivia (Cochabamba region) to Trichoc macrogonus.
The synonymy of the species is:
Trichocereus macrogonus (S.-D.) Ricc.
Trichocereus peruvianus Br. & R.
Cereus Rosei Werd.
Thus the origin of the plant which has long been used as an grafting stock by us has become perfectly clear: It comes from the central Peruvian Matucana Valley, from about 2000 m above the sea."

[Thanks EG for those points of clarification!]

Compare this image and these words to Backeberg 1937 and Backeberg 1959.

-----------------------------------

P. Fournier. 1954.
Les Cactées et las plantes grasses.

post-900-0-94473100-1439684057_thumb.jpg

"C. macrogonus S.-D., sud-américain, est nettement teinté de bleu, avec des aiguillons bruns."

"C. macrogonus S.-D., South American, is distinctly blue colored, with brown spines."

post-900-0-17627300-1439684023_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-70068100-1439683973_thumb.jpg

P. Fournier in 1954


-----------------------------------

H. Johnson. c. 1958-1968.

Harry Johnson field collected something in the Peruvian highlands that he considered to be Trichocereus macrogonus and sold it through Johnson Cactus Gardens. It seems to have disappeared among the multiple horticultural peruvianus strains that exist in California.

As far as I can establish this was a stout and erect plant with large flowers similar to Eltzner's peruvianus or the large stout plant by a wooden fence at Ruth Bancroft Gardens labeled "Cereus sp." and identified online as T. santaensis. I presently suspect they may actually be synonymous but have not yet been able to nail that together with any degree of certainty.

Entries in their catalog:
1958 p. 34; 1960 p 34; 1961 p. 34; 1962 p. 34: “Huge flowers. 6” cuts.”
1966 p. 19; 1967 p. 19: mentions
1968 p. ?: cat. # 129800


-----------------------------------

Backeberg (& Rauh). 1956.
Descriptiones Cactacearum Novarum I.

Rauh (& Backeberg). 1958.
Beitrag zur Kenntnis der peruanischen Kakteenvegetation

These two works will be examined in more detail elsewhere.
What is pertinent to this work might not be apparent when reading their accounts. These two publications are not being included in this work due to their not mentioning T. macrogonus. (Trichocereus pachanoi was also curiously not mentioned at all by Rauh in his extensive overview of the distribution of cacti in Peru. It seems unlikely he did not encounter it in many of the regions that he visited; for instance Huancabamba).

Myron Kimnach minced no words about his opinion of Backeberg publishing the Descriptiones Cactacearum Novarum I. The review appeared in the 1957 Cactus & Succulent Journal of America 29: 146

Kimnach wrote:

'The work will probably always be regarded as a curiosity of botanical literature, for here the customary low quality of Backeberg's work sinks to a grotesque level. Indeed, it could well be used as a classroom example of what the conscientious taxonomist should avoid in his own work. In the first place he has employed questionable ethics in publishing a number of Rauh's collections which he knew had been collected earlier by Johnson, Ritter and Akers and which he also knew the latter were planning to publish. Secondly he seems to have described every minor variation so that for example we are confronted with some 20 new Haageocereus species from one river-valley in Peru! The descriptions are ridiculously short and he fails to mention how the new species differ from one another and from older species. The result is that practically none of his new taxa are established as being actually distinct." [in that comment, Kimnach brings up our most important point.]
" It can be imagined what the effect of these 200 newly published, but inadequately distinguished, species will be on the revision of Peruvian cacti now in progress by different workers. Their task has been difficult at best, due to the amateurish manner in which most of the older species were published. Now that confusion, for which Backeberg was also largely responsible, has been fantastically multiplied.'

What is not apparent here is that not only were those other workers in the midst of publishing descriptions for their new species but, some of them, along with Paul Hutchison were actively working on a monograph for the genus Trichocereus which was abandoned in the wake of these publications. From all other things we've seen, the perception of threat from this might have been involved with the publication of the strange little booklet "Descriptiones Cactacearum Novarum I" that in some ways seemed to have been rushed into print.

As for why those two works are pertinent to the discussion when they never mention macrogonus?

It can be fairly said that macrogonus would have no place in a book on Peruvian cacti, at least at this point in its history.
I might suggest that something else is possibly occurring here. Recall in Myron's commentary on Backeberg above the concern about introducing so many new species accompanied by descriptions that do not adequately differentiate them? This criticism is also just as true for the majority of the new Trichocereus species that were being introduced within these two works (they include the same new species).
In the works from Backeberg, following Werdermann 1931 and prior to these two publications, the reader will recall that Backeberg had been voicing comments that peruvianus may have been or was the 'lost' macrogonus - suggesting that they were a single species due to how much they resemble each other, "even the seedlings are just the same".
I would suggest that the lumping of European macrogonus and the peruvianus Backeberg photographed near Matucana could have seriously undermined the concepts of puquiensis, santaensis, schoenii and tarmanensis as far as being distinct from previously known Peruvian species. I may have no problem in thinking macrogonus and peruvianus (and pachanoi) belong within a single species but they are clearly also quite recognizable and distinct from each other compared to the discernible differences between cuzcoensis, puquiensis, schoenii and tarmaensis.
Whatever the case may be, following these two publications Backeberg consistently treated macrogonus and peruvianus as separate species. It is worth examining those descriptions to see how they differentiates the two. In particular it is worth considering not just what elements from the previous descriptions are included but what was left out.


-----------------------------------

To be continued.
When we return, the concept called macrogonus develops an identity crisis.

post-900-0-65271100-1439682383_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16050600-1439682427_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-77388100-1439682445_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-96729100-1439682469.jpg

post-900-0-32632500-1439682539_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-51653900-1439682592_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-32398800-1439682623_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-75979300-1439682658_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-36528900-1439682699_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-45253000-1439682773_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-53453400-1439682811_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-26268900-1439682858_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-33941900-1439682921_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-02534400-1439683021_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-02282300-1439683064_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-42982500-1439683115_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-70244000-1439683147_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-98963500-1439683180_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-79147600-1439683279_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-72236500-1439683342_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-34697300-1439683387_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-64945200-1439683400_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37519100-1439683488_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-70068100-1439683973_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17627300-1439684023_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-94473100-1439684057_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-18220500-1439684106_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-65271100-1439682383_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16050600-1439682427_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-77388100-1439682445_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-96729100-1439682469.jpg

post-900-0-32632500-1439682539_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-51653900-1439682592_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-32398800-1439682623_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-75979300-1439682658_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-36528900-1439682699_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-45253000-1439682773_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-53453400-1439682811_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-26268900-1439682858_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-33941900-1439682921_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-02534400-1439683021_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-02282300-1439683064_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-42982500-1439683115_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-70244000-1439683147_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-98963500-1439683180_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-79147600-1439683279_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-72236500-1439683342_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-34697300-1439683387_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-64945200-1439683400_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37519100-1439683488_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-70068100-1439683973_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17627300-1439684023_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-94473100-1439684057_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-18220500-1439684106_thumb.jpg

Edited by trucha
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

kt, I've thoroughly enjoyed the history and am very much looking forward to comments addressing the "quite recognizable and distict" differences between T. peruvianus and T. macrogonus, differences which you appear to indicate don't necessarily mean they are different species. I can easily gather that the name T. macrogonus might have precedence over the name T. peruvianus, but if these two can be recognized as distict from each other, and therefore be worthy of a difference in name, even if that be at the subspecies or variation level, then what of the plethora of others that may have comparable disimilarities but are clearly in the same species? Are we then to create a plethora of subspecies or variations?

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi Michael

Thanks!

We come back to a not minor problem that will continue to be a persistent annoyance for all of us. At least all who don't appreciate a never-to-end debate about what is or is not a given species.

If we lack a clear definition of what it takes to be a species or a subspecies or a variety or a subvariety or a form, there can be no truly meaningful way to declare that something is or is not one of those taxa.

It is a strange system of classification that can't be bothered to define its terms and units.

It all revolves around how we want to define things so the debate between lumpers and splitters will continue to ebb and flow.

This is one area people get stuck unnecessarily as with good verbage we can successfully discuss the same plants without agreeing on their placement. I mentioned to a friend the other day my concern on this. If I want to discuss Bufo alvarius with someone who regards it as Incilius alvaria why do we always have to begin our discussion with a conversation or maybe argument about what name to use? Unless we are discussing merits of one choice or another. We both know we are talking about the same toad. If a German chemist and an American chemist talk about chemistry they pronouce words like amide quite differently. Yet they have no problem with understanding each other or demanding the other's compliance in speech. So why can't botanical conversations have that same interpersonal respect? It is not like they are the "right" or "correct" names, they are just the "currently accepted" names. As that can be anticipated to change (as many times as new workers want to pick up the torch), it seems hard to want to take it too seriously.

It is actually almost rude when someone says "Trichocereus this" and another person goes "Do you mean, Echinopsis this?" as if that is a real or valuable question. I would suggest the person asking that knows perfectly well what plant is being discussed even if they chose different names.

So, I'd suggest the first task really needs to be finding definitions we can agree on accompanied by the understanding we should all be tolerant of other people's viewpoints having variability.

From my point of view I have no problem recognizing macrogonus and peruvianus or pachanoi in their peaks of definition. A host of plants exist that are less clearly one or the other. All of those would be benefitted by some actual study even if only to map out the ranges of distributions.

Whatever develops needs to be based on rigorous field work with the understanding we can't know what is no longer present. For instance, it is not clear how many cacti were destroyed by the Army in Bolivia during the 1970s in response to the 'hippie invasion'. It is certain that huge stands of bridgesii around the urban areas were removed but there is not much record outside of the eyewitness accounts concerning how extensive was the activity or whether the pachanoi and peruvianus types were being included in the eradication program. Brian Bates told me some years ago he had only seen a few pachanoi plants in his life as it was only cultivated and used for drug purposes in Bolivia. While that is a strange reason for only noticing a few it also indicates the view of pachanoi in Bolivia would not be much different from bridgesii so it would seem unlikely to have been left alone by people removing bridgesii.

We do know what we want to think of as peaks (ie those few good species everyone agrees on). Maybe those should be divided further, maybe they shouldn't be. The outcome of that should be based on actual evaluation resulting from field work; without any attachment as to whether it increases or decreases the present number of species or if it just rearranges them into positions of rank in a lower taxa.

For example, based on what I consider to be preliminary and inadequate levels of information, I'd place schoenii, puquiensis and tarmaensis as subspecies or varieties of cuzcoensis. It will require actual field work to determine their best relationships; ideally with a mind for noting how and where they diverged from each other.

Macrogonus, peruvianus and pachanoi clearly belong together. Priority makes macrogonus the parent -- assuming it actually merits preservation as a good name. It is still not quite there until someone nails down a wild population that can be linked to European plants.

Peruvianus clearly needs recognition separate from macrogonus whether as a subspecies or variety or maybe even just a form. I have no problem with thinking of them as one species despite having no problem telling them apart outside of the intermediates. It is not however possible for me to think of them as separate species. There just is not enough difference that is meaningful.

Once Part 2 on peruvianus is completed a lot of that will become clear but we will next be moving into the newer workers concerning macrogonus so in between that and the image section I believe you will get your wish much sooner. Initially I tried interweaving them but it became unreadable.

A suggestion that might be helpful is to view them not as being actual separate species but as simple morphological variant forms within a single species. Then we can move to studying what is present with a mind for what to lump and what to split at a subspecific level.

How far will it go? How far should it go? Who knows?

The answer should be based on what actual study reveals. We need to see a lot more field work and a lot more molecular investigation examining different populations and forms of what we are calling peruvianus, pachanoi and macrogonus. That was a point where Albesiano & Kiesling curiously dropped the ball imho by looking at only one single point for each, not really defining what they looked at (or why one was a macrogonus) and weirdly not including any samples of the type populations.

And hopefully in the process we can find some realistic definitions of the terms and units we are employing?

A whole lot of this picture could be resolved by that even if it is recognized to be an artificial convention.

Language is entirely about communicating with each other with some clarity and possesses no lofty greater purpose. If we consistently stumble in a darkened area we need to add lights. Consistency in word choices can be helpful but so can the recognition of the use of synonyms in speech.

I'm only going to be adding an edit with the translation for Backeberg 1941 this AM but will be back soon with the rest.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Also

re: "then what of the plethora of others that may have comparable disimilarities but are clearly in the same species? Are we then to create a plethora of subspecies or variations?"

Right now we have a decent number of those. For instance, the ones suggested above as being in cuzcoensis, plus santaensis and tulhuayacensis and pallarensis. Those all are recognizable but are any independent and good species or will they make a nice fit someplace within an existing species?

I'd suggest subspecific rankings appear most sound at this point but again some actual study is needed that is based on field work involving populations rather than selected individuals.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks! You answered some of my follow-ups without me having to ask. One more thing though, do you agree with E.F. Anderson's view that to be regarded as a species there must be an edimic/indigenous population of relatively homogeneous plants? (I'm of course not trying to preclude the possibility of plants that might have been introduced to a new location in the past by whatever means and evolved over time into a new species and developed a naturalized population.) Does this make sense?

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

RE: "to be regarded as a species there must be an endemic/indigenous population of relatively homogeneous plants"

That is on mildly shaky grounds for those plants that express a range of features across their geographic range but it is largely a good assumption. However, if we apply it very far a host of geographical variants would suddenly become species. This is at the core of the challenges for lumpers and splitters. For instance can a person really consider Lophophora williamsii to be "an endemic/indigenous population of relatively homogeneous plants"? It might be noteworthy that Anderson did not recognize Koehresii as not being williamsii when he encountered it in the field and he considered fricii to be just another williamsii.

What may be underappreciated in this and all similar areas of thought is there is a invariable presence of capriciousness in real world application.

Something that would be helpful or which needs to be better employed in classification is subspecific taxa. There seems to have been a movement from dividing species into subspecies INSTEAD of varieties that often fails to consider that a subspecies and a variety are not the same thing.

Within a species can be subspecies (as long as there is more than one), if there are distinctive subdivisions within the subspecies those are varieties, which can potentially be further divided into subvarieties, forms, subforms and even land races once we start looking at more localized variations. No one really takes advantage of that pre-existing framework even though we are looking at an ideal area for it to be applied once adequate field study of wild populations has occurred. It is likely entirely the result of that field work not existing that this has not already occurred.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I only ask as there seems to be so much human intervention in Trichocereus, particularly in central to northern Peru, going back at least 3,000 years to the Chavin culture if not much further. It just makes me wonder if these early explorers were naming plants simply by differences from others they've seen, and which could have been cloned over centuries, but lack general populations of somewhat homogeneous plants that reproduce amongst themselves and take to the soil naturally. I guess my question is about how one might differenciate a species from a clone in a culture which has for so long interacted with the genus. In looking at some of the plants of southern Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, there are ranges over which the giant Trichocereus are spread and which somewhat more clearly allows one to consider certain populations species, and subspecies, but when it comes to some of the "species" of Peru, and of which are the focus of our interest, this seems to be lacking in some respects. Is there any sort of listing available which outlines which of these have clear-cut populations of naturally growing homogenous plants that reproduce and grow naturally without hint of human intervention? I would undoubtedly consider T. cuzcoensis and T. peruvianus in this list, and likely T. pachanoi and T. schoenii, but are there self-replicating naturalized "stands" of such "species" as T. tarmaensis, T. pallarensis, T. santaensis, T. tulhuayacensis, and T. puquiensis that mimic how most cactus taxa grow over a certain territory?

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

A truly sad point in this is that the work you (and I) would love to have in our hands on that subject was prevented due to Backeberg 1956 going to print.

One of the people involved (someone named King) contacted me out of the blue to tell me of the monograph they had been creating in the 1950s that got shelved. A monograph would include distributions of the known populations as well as descriptions. It takes a lot of work and a lot of data to create such a thing and those involved had the extensive field experience that was required (unlike Backeberg).

I'd imagine you were are struck as me with the immense degree of what can only be called ego-driven politics in this story. We all lost something of value due to Backeberg 1956 going to print.

I've been trying to learn more ever since that conversation but have not managed to make any progress.

I discovered an error in what I put above.

Inexplicably I had not checked into confirming the date of publication for Flora Brasiliensis and relied on the date on my hard (photo) copy. It was a typo. 1899 should have been 1890. Amusingly this seems to be correct in most of my records but I had not caught it or its subsequent proliferation until today when the reference given in Albesiano caused me to check it. I'll correct that above as soon as I post this.

With luck I will have the rest of the images online within the next couple of days.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And let me toss out a comment that some might take issue with.

I have no disagreement with the fact people have moved these around a lot since ancient times. In particular pachanoi for drug use and cuzcoensis for its edible fruit.

I don't think it is possible to know what existed before that.

Or what existed 10K years before that. And it would have been even more different at 100K.

I would anticipate the picture has steadily changed as a result of humans but prior to that it also did so in parallel as a simple result of elapsed time.

It is not even possible to take a single clone and reproduce it for a period of time without recombinant events turning it into something that varies genetically from its parent. Mutation based on recombinant events is hardwired into reproduction as an important factor not simply a glitch. The areas of the genome that are most impacted are not homogenously random in their location but are heavily concentrated in regions coding for things such as phytochemicals and enzymes and simple morphological features.

This SEEMS to be responsible for producing the intricately interwoven web of life we call ecosystems. Something subtle is that those ecosystems are the result of a process and not the primordial natural state. Like the cast of life forms represented on the planet those ecosystems are in constant flux and change.

One of those life forms is us.

For some reason we set ourselves apart from the rest of the world and nature.

Cacti spread only as far as their seeds or sometimes joints can be carried. Water and wind move seeds around, birds and bats do too. Animals can carry cholla joints a decent distance. We consider those natural but we somehow don't consider humans to be natural vectors of plants.

I like to view us as part of the system rather than some sort of a divine injection into it.

It is good to be aware of the vectors responsible for plants being moved. It is even worthy of study.

Historical ecosystems are something far more difficult to reconstruct. Pollen counts can only say so much as often the taller a plant the farther its pollen is able to drift.

The diversity of cactus life in Peru certainly might involve human contribution introducing new genetics into the pollen available for bees to move around but it also may also represent factors capable of influencing the rate of recombinant events. This seems to account for the known hotspots of genetic diversity. And those are not mutually exclusive and both of them seem likely to have been contributing factors. It seems doubtful that human intervention accounted for most of it outside of this area involving cacti finding human use though as the diversity of morphological forms represented in Peru is not just true in the genera that are valued by humans but also is just as true in the even more abundant genera of cacti that don't find much if any use or planting or deliberate distribution.

I think we would all love to know the ancestral types before humans started moving pachanoi and other cacti around. It would logically seem like the impact had to be substantial for those sorts of plants.

High heat is a known factor directly influencing an increase in speciation but in the Andes the factors are not so clear to me as the weather is overall fairly nice compared to say northeastern Mexico (which holds two of the worlds known hot spots of diversity).

Something Grizzly commented on was the soil being intensely mineralized. He mentioned that in the native soils of the peruvianus near Matucana it was so mineralized a person could readily find nuggets of copper crystals at the surface. Lack of rain is certainly a stress factor and likely underlies pachanoi and peruvianus tending to follow watercourses including in many high rocky areas defying any human visitors.

I don't have any real conclusions yet just those thoughts and questions.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

C. Backeberg. 1959.
Die Cactaceae. II


" Typus: Cereus macrogonus O. -- Typstandort: Nicht angegeben (Herkunftsangabe "Brasilien" ist ein Irrtum), wahrscheinlich Peru."

" Type: Cereus macrogonus O. - type Location: Not Specified (origin "Brazil" is a mistake), probably Peru."

Notice Backeberg might be separating this from peruvianus but he is retaining his introduction of Peru as a plausible point of origin.


p 1119-1121
Trichocereus macrogonus (SD.) Ricc. - Boll R. Orto. Bot. Palermo 8: 236. 1909

Cereus macrogonus SD., Cact. Hort. Dyck Cult. 1849: 203. 1909

" Aufrecht, im Alter über 2 m hoch werdend. ziemlich kräftig, ca 7 cm Ø. bläulich-grün. ± bereift, besonders anfangs; Rippen meist 7, bis 8–9 mm dick, ± über den Areolen eingedrückt; Areolen 1,5 cm entfernt, 6 mm Ø, kurz graufilzig; Randst. 6–9, strahlend oder wenig schräg aufrecht, stark priemlich, bis 2 cm lang, hornfarbig bis braun, später schwäzlich; Mittelst. 1–3, etwas stärker und länger, meist etwas aufwärts oder abwärts gerichtet; Bl. nach Schumann 6–7 cm lang, nach Borg 18 cm lang, [backeberg does not give a reference to either author's work], ungelfähr in dieser Länge von mir in der Sammlung Gastaud gesehen (Abb. 1075); Fr. etwas breit kugelig, 5 cm Ø; S. eiförmig, schwarz, glänzend, grubig punktiert. — Herkunft unbekannt."

" Upright, with age to about 2 m high. quite sturdy, ca 7 cm Ø. bluish-green. ± frosted, especially at the beginning; Ribs usually 7 until 8-9 mm thick, ± indented on the areoles; Areoles 1.5 cm, 6 mm Ø, with short grey-felt; Radial spines 6-9, spreading or somewhat obliquely upright, strong awl-like, to 2 cm long, horn-colored to brown, later blackish; Centrals, 1-3, somewhat stronger and longer, usually somewhat upwardly or downwardly directed; . Blossom according to Schumann 6-7 cm long, 18 cm long by Borg, I have witnessed roughly this length in the Gaustad collection (Fig 1075); Fr. somewhat flattened-spherical, 5 cm Ø; Seeds ovoid, black, shiny, punctured with pits. - Unknown Origin.


" Schumann Blütenangabe muß unrichtig sein oder bezog sich auf eine in der Kultur ungewöhnliche klein gebliebene; schon Weber gab die Länge mit 18 cm an. Die äußeren Sep. laufen schmalspitz zu, die inneren sind fast spatelig, die Pet. breit und oben schwach verjüngt, nicht gespitzt. Man nahn ursprünglich die Herkunft aus Brasilien an, Borg aus „Argentinien und Bolivien", wo die Art nirgends festgestellt wurde. "

" Schumann's flower details are either inaccurate or referred to unusually small specimen produced in cultivation; Weber had previously given a length of 18 cm. The outer Sepals are very narrowly pointed, the inner are almost spatulate, the Petals are wide and slightly narrowed above, not acuminate. The origin was originally given as being from Brazil and Borg gave as being from "Argentina and Bolivia", where the species is nowhere to be found. "

One other plausible option is that Schumann was referring only to the floral tube in a fashion similar to Riccobono's account where it is similarly given as being 7 cm long.

[Omitting Backeberg’s addition comments on potential synonyms and errors as it largely just repeats 1941.]

" C. hempelianus Bauer soll nach Fobe nur eine kräftige, blaugrüne Varietät von T. macrogonus sein, d.h. wohl eine weniger degenerierte, als es in Glashaussammlungen meist der Fall ist."

" C. hempelianus Bauer is only a strong, blue-green variety of T. macrogonus after Fobe, [it is] probably a degenerated form, as is usually the case in glasshouse collections. "


The pertinent thing in this work, is that Backeberg presents macrogonus and peruvianus as separate species. He does not bring up Werdermann or mention the Pilosocereus in the discussion.

post-900-0-10992300-1439836211_thumb.jpg

" Abb 1075 Trichocereus macrogonus (SD.) Ricc.. wurde bisher nicht mit Sicherheit wiedergefunden."

" Fig. 1075 Trichocereus macrogonus (SD.) Ricc. is of uncertain origin." [i.e. "Has never been recovered with certainty]

[This plant was growing in the Gaustad collection rather than at Berlin.]


post-900-0-09631200-1439836280_thumb.jpg

" Abb 1076 Trichocereus sp., von Rauh im Mantarogebiet Mittel-Peru gefunden, vielleicht die Wildform des Tr. macrogonus."

" Abb 1076 Trichocereus sp. found by Rauh in the Mantaro area in Central Peru, perhaps a wild form of Tr. macrogonus."
(Huancayo is located in the Mantaro Valley. The spiny Trichocereus there appear to be allied with cuzcoensis more so than with peruvianus.)

" Rauh fand 1954 (coll. Nr. K 68-1954) einem Trichocereus, der vielleicht als Wildform des T. macrogonus angesehen werden kann:
Bis 3 m hoch; Tr. bis 6 cm Ø; Rippen 8, oben gerundet, ohne Querkerben; Areolen kräftig graufilzig; Randst. bis 10, der obere oder einer der drei mittelleren aufwärts oder schräg abwärts weisend, die mittleren etwas an der Basis verdickt (auch die randständigen?), bis 8 cm lang, der kürzeste Randst. nur 1,2 cm lang, alle bräunlich; bl. unbekannt; die Tr. sind im jüngsten Teil bereift. - Mittleres Peru (Apurimac-Tal, bei der Hazienda Marcahuasci, 1900 m."
Bei T. macrogonus sind später sämtliche St. unten zweibelig Verdickt, d.h. wenn sie richtig entwickelt sind."

"In 1954 Rauh found (coll K No. 68-1954..) a Trichocereus, which perhaps can be considered a wild form of T. macrogonus:
Up to 3 m high; Stems to 6 cm Ø;. Ribs 8, rounded top without transverse notches; areoles strong grey-felted; radial spines to 10, the top or one of the three centrals is directed upwardly or obliquely pointing downward, somewhat thickened at the base (also the radials?), to 8 cm long, while the shortest radial spines are only 1.2 cm long, all brownish; flower unknown; the branches are frosted in the newest part - Central Peru (Apurimac valley, in. Marcahuasci hacienda, 1900 m. "
In T. macrogonus the older spines have a thickened onion-like base, ie if they are designated properly."

This last comment is true of peruvianus too but the base of the spines are often obscured by felt.

post-900-0-24482500-1439836383_thumb.jpg

"rosei #2" AKA peruvianus at Field's in VIC

post-900-0-56743000-1439836408_thumb.jpg

Backberg in 1931

post-900-0-96489900-1439836442_thumb.jpg

Backeberg in 1961

post-900-0-36206800-1439836313.jpg

Werner Rauh 1971
IOS Congress Heidelburg



Without any further detail, in the last paragraph of his peruvianus entry on page 1108, Backeberg reverses the stance in his comments from 1941 and earlier:

"Trichocereus peruvianus Br. & R. -- The Cact., II: 136. 1920

Cereus rosei Werd., in Backeberg, "Neue Kakteen", 101. 1931."

" Entweder ± aufrecht oder überliegend bis häangend, 2-4 m lang; Tr. bis 20 cm ø, anfangs bereift; Rippen über den Areolen etwas eingesenkt und ± höckerig erscheinend, breit-rund; Areolen bis 2,5 cm entfernt, ziemlich groß, braunfilzig; St. zuerst braun, ca. 10, einige bis 4 cm lang, stark und steif, Basis nicht verdickt; Bl. weiß, zum Teil zahlreich nach dem Scheitel zu entwickelt. -- Peru (bei Matucana; nach Rauh bis oberhalb von Matucana bzw. bei Tamboraque an der Lima--Oroya-Bahn bis auf 2800 m) (Abb. 1059-1060, Tafel 76)
Britton und Rose bilden mit ihrer Fig 197 einen baumartig aufrechten Cereus ab, Rauh dagegen einen häangenden; ich selbst fand die Art anfangs ± aufrecht, dann überliegend bis niederliegend. Es kommen bei Matucana aber auch Exemplare des aufrechten T santaensis vor, den Britton und Rose wohl nicht als besondere Art erkannten.
Die Identifizierung dieser Art mit Tr macrogonus (KKde., 20. 1941) kann ich nicht aufrechterhalten."

" Either ± erect or lying to hanging, 2-4 m long; Tr. to 20 cm ø, initially frosted; Ribs somewhat sunken above the areoles and ± bumpy appearing, wide and rounded; Areoles up to 2.5 cm apart, quite large, filled with brown felt; Spines at first brown, about 10, some up to 4 cm long, strong and stiff, not thickened at base; Flower white, numerous to developed partly by the crown. - Peru (in Matucana, according to Rauh, above Matucana or at Tamboraque at the Lima - Oroya road, up to 2,800 m) (Fig 1059-1060, Plate 76)
Britton and Rose depict in Figure 197 an upright treelike Cereus, Rauh contrasts with [finding them] hanging; I myself found the Type initially ± erect, to then lying prostrate. It occurs in Matucana but also [there are also] the specimens of the erect T. santaensis that Britton and Rose probably did not recognize as a separate species.
I can not longer maintain support (KKDE., 20, 1941) for the identification of this Species with Tr macrogonus"

post-900-0-35518400-1439836511_thumb.jpg

Trichocereus peruvianus tip; plate 76 from Backeberg 1959

Interestingly Backeberg’s key first splits macrogonus from peruvianus based on diameter. And then macrogonus from pachanoi and bridgesii based on spines.

T. peruvianus

" Zweige bis 20 cm ø
Stacheln pfriemlich, braun, unten nicht verdickte, meist weniger als 4 cm lang (Rippen 6-8)"

" Branches to 20 cm in diameter.
Spines subulate, brown, not thickened at base, usually less than 4 cm long (ribs 6-8)"

Macrogonus is within the split

" Zweige 5-10 cm ø (nur vereinzelt am alten Stamm stärker)
Stacheln länger, nadelförmig bis pfriemlich, braun bis dunkler, Basis verdickt."

" Branches 5-10 cm ø (only few more at the old strain)
Spines longer, acicular to subulate, brown to darker, thickened at base. "

Pachanoi is in the same division of the key as macrogonus but with the features:

" Stacheln sehr kurz oder fehlend, dunkelgelb bis braun."

" Spines very short or absent, dark yellow to brown."

Bridgesii is given with the features:

" Stacheln pfriemlich, gelb
Basis nicht verdickt."

" Spines subulate, yellow
Base (of spines) not thickened."

Bridgesii is divided from cuzcoensis by

" Basis nicht verdickt."

" Base (of spines) not thickened."

-----------------------------------

R.C. Foster. 1958.
Gray Herbarium of Harvard University, No. 184.
A catalogue of the ferns and flowering plants of Bolivia.

page 142
Robert C. Foster includes Trichocereus macrogonus as a component of Bolivia's flora. This is a simple list with no details.



-----------------------------------

S. Agurell. 1969.
Lloydia, 32 (2): 206-216


post-900-0-80765800-1439836566_thumb.jpg

Stig Agurell in 1984

Stig Agurell reported the results of an analysis of something in horticulture that was being called T. macrogonus.


Concerning his source:

" Cacti used in this investigation are all commercially available and were purchased from K. Edelmann, Reeuwijk, The Netherlands; Walter Haage, Erfurt, DDR; or imported through the courtesy of B. Larsen, Kvarnby, Sweden.

The nomenclature of species as proposed by Backeberg (4) is used throughout. Cacti were checked to conform with the macromorphological descriptions given by Backeberg (4,5). However, only occasionally flowering species were available and cacti containing interesting compounds were then obtained from at least two different sources and their alkaloid content compared."


No details concerning that alkaloid content comparison were included in the tabular results of Agurell.


It is not clear where Agurell's macrogonus came from although the Haage certainly has been an established provider of macrogonus seeds for some time. The probability seem high that by 1984 Knize was providing seeds to Walter Haage as their seeds being sourced from European plants is unlikely (despite that seemingly occurring in earlier decades). This would have placed its origin as Bolivia. Assuming we can rely on accuracy for any data originating with Karel Knize.

p 214
Lloydia vol. 32, no. 2.

T. macrogonus
Presence of alkaloids ++
Alkaloids % of total fraction criteria
mescaline 3 MS, IR
3,4-dimethoxyphenethylamine 1 MS
3-MeO-tyramine 1 MS
tyamine 1 MS



Many cactus people will be fascinated about the curious fact that T. macrogonus seeds were apparently available and viable during part of its first century of cultivation; based on early comments by Backeberg about comparing seedlings of macrogonus and peruvianus. There was a curious dearth of seed suppliers until the late 1960s to early 1970s when Knize entered their world. Considering how infrequently the plant was reported to bloom and the well-known self-infertility of the Trichocereus species those seeds produced in European culture may be suspected to have been of hybrid origin. peruvianus and bridgesii commonly flower at the same time and either could be a plausible pollen parent. At the very least a person has to wonder what sort of viability selfed macrogonus seeds would possess. Backeberg's comments about comparing the seedlings of those two long pre-dated Knize's appearance. Another possibility would be that multiple clones were originally collected and those formed plantings in the Mediterranean that were capable of forming viable fruit.


-----------------------------------

G.D. Rowley. 1974.
IOS Bulletin
“Reunion of the genus Echinopsis.”

Heimo Friedrich & Gordon Douglas Rowley presented a list that renamed the accepted Trichocereus as Echinopsis

post-900-0-93296800-1439836652_thumb.jpg

Heimo Friedrich in 1978


In the case of macrogonus = macrogona that entire effort looked like this:

post-900-0-57748700-1439836693_thumb.jpg

"Echinopsis macrogona (S. D.) FRIEDR. & ROWLEY
Cereus macrogonus S. D. in Cact. Hort. Dyck. Cult. 1849; 203, 1850;
Trichocereus macrogonus RICC."


It is worth actually reading Friedrich 1974 before deciding whether to take this merger seriously or not.


-----------------------------------

H. Krainz. 1975.
Die Kakteen


Trichocereus macrogonus (Salm-Dyck) Riccobono

gr. macrognus = großrippig

Greek macrogonus = big ribbed.

" Wuchs baumförmig, wening verästelt, bis 6 m hoch, in Kultur bis 2 m hoch und 7 cm im ∅, ohne zu blühen. Triebe bläugrün, aufrecht, säulenformig, oben etwas verschmälert und gerundet, von Stacheln überragt. Rippen meist 7, seltener 8—9, dick, durch scharfe Furchen voneinander getrennt, kaum buchtig gegliedert, stumpf, am Grunde 3 cm breit, mit convexen Seiten, 2-2,5 cm hoch, um die Areolen oft mit einer gekerbten Linie, dazwischen etwas verschmälert. Areolen rund bis elliptisch, 5-6 mm in ∅, 1-1,5 cm voneinander entfernt mit grauen, kurzem Wollfilz. Randstacheln 6-9, strahlend oder ein wenig schräg aufrecht, stark pfiemlich, 5-20 mm lang, erst hornfarben, später schwärzlich bis schwarz. Mittelstacheln meist 1-3, ± 2,5 cm, etwas stärker als die Randstacheln und länger, ± nach vorn gerichtet.
Blüten nächtlich, einzeln, unterhalb des Scheitels, bis 17 cm lang, bis 7 cm ∅, glockigtrichterförmig. Pericarpell 1 cm lang, bis 2 cm im ∅, halbkugelig, mit kleinen, dreieckigen, sehr fleischigen, kurzen und breit stumpfen Schuppen und braunen wolligen Achselhaaren. Receptaculum bis 5 cm lang, kräftig gerift, mit breiten, kurzen, breiten und derben halbreisförmigen Schuppen und wening braunen Wollhaaren aus den Achseln. Äußere Hüllblätter bis 6 cm lang, lineallanzettlich, zurüchgeschlagen, grünlich; innere ca. 2,5 cm lang, 1,5 cm breit, dreiseitig eiförmig, weiß. Staubblätter von der gefurchten, diffusen Kektarkammer beginnend, ca. 2,5 cm lang, die letzten im Kranz am Grunde der Hüllblätter angeheftet. Griffel 6-8 cm lang, die Blütenhülle mit 12 zylindrischen, 6-8 mm langen Narbenästen die Blütenhülle überragend.
Frucht niedergegruckt kugelig, bis 3 cm lang, 4,5-5 cm im ∅, genabelt, mit dicken, breiten Schuppen, braunen Wollhaaren und vertrocknetem Hilum., eingeschlossenem Mikropylarloch und dunkelschwarzer, glänzener, grubig punktierter Testa."


" Treelike in habit, weakly branching, up to 6 m high, in culture to 2 m high and 7 cm in diameter, without blooming. blue-green branches, erect, columar, tip somewhat narrowed and rounded, surmounted by spines. Ribs, usually 7, rarely 8-9, thick, separated from each by sharp grooves, scarcely divided and sinuate, obtuse, 3 cm wide at base, with convex sides, 2-2.5 cm high, often above the areoles there is a notched transverse line, [stem] narrowing a little in between the areoles. Areoles round to elliptical, 5-6 mm in diameter, separated by 1-1.5 cm with gray, short wool felt. Radial spines 6-9, spreading or slightly obliquely upright, strong awl-shaped (subulate), 5-20 mm long, starts horn-colored, later blackish to black. Central spines, usually 1-3, ± 2.5 cm, slightly stronger and longer than the radial spines, ± directed forward.
Flowers nocturnal, [borne] singly, below the apex, up to 17 cm long, up to 7 cm in diameter, bell to funnel shaped. Pericarpel 1 cm long, up to 2 cm in diameter, hemispherical, with small, triangular, very fleshy, short and wide blunt scales and brown wooly hairs in the axils. Receptacle to 5 cm long, strongly fluted, with broad, short, wide and semicircular scales and some brown woolly hair from the axils. Outer tepals up to 6 cm long, linear-lanceolate, folded backwards, greenish; internal about 2.5 cm long, 1.5 cm wide, three-sided oval, white. Stamens from a furrowed, diffuse nectar-chamber, about 2.5 cm long, and are attached in the last ring at the base of the tepals. Style 6-8 cm long, perianth with 12 cylindrical, 6-8 mm long stigma lobes extending past the the perianth.
Fruit, slightly flattened, round, to 3 cm long, 4.5-5 cm in diameter, umbilicate, with thick, broad scales, brown woolen hair and a desiccated hilum, Enclosed micropiles, seeds, dark black, shiny, gouged with small dotted pits."


post-900-0-25577400-1439836755_thumb.jpg

" Abb. 1. Trichocereus macrogonus. Mitte Juli 1938 um 8 Uhr aufgenommen in der Städt. Sukkulentensammlung Zürich."

" Trichocereus macrogonus. Acquired at 8 clock in mid-July of 1938 in the Städt Sukkulentensammlung Zurich. "

post-900-0-45511600-1439837454_thumb.jpg

" Abb 2. Triebende mit Früchten. Aufgenommen Anfang September 1971 im Bot. Garten "Marimurtra", Blanes (Spanien)"

" Stem tip with fruits. Taken in early September 1971 at the Bot. Garden "Marimurtra" Blanes (Spain)"

post-900-0-22123700-1439837479_thumb.jpg

" Abb 3. In drei Teile aufgespaltene, reife Frucht. (Bot. Garten "Marimutra", Blanes). Aufnahmen: H. Krainz"

" The ripe fruit splits into three parts. (Bot. Garden "Marimutra", Blanes). Images: H. Krainz"

Krainz’s comment on the ripe fruit splitting three ways is incorrect to be considered as a feature of the plant even if is what was observed by Krainz. He was apparently not familiar with them.
This fruit has been torn open and damaged by a frugivore such as a bird or a bat. This was not an example of natural dehiscence as was later assumed by Albesiano & Kiesling. More comments can be found within their entry below.

post-900-0-95892200-1439836894.jpg

Hans Krainz at an IOS Congress in 1950.

post-900-0-97648700-1439836930_thumb.jpg

Image found via google images.

Hans Krainz
13 May 1906 - 20 May 1980


-----------------------------------

C. Backeberg. 1977.
Cactus Lexicon

p 495
" T. macrogonus (SD.) Ricc. (1) (T.)
Bo. eventually over 2 m h., bluish-green, branching; branches to c. 7 cm Ø, ± frosted at first; Ri. mostly 7, rounded, ± depressed over the Ar.; Ar. 1.5 cm apart, grey; Rsp. 6-9, radiating, subulate, to 2 cm lg.; Csp 1-3, rather stouter and longer; Sp. all horn-coloured to brown, later blackish or dark grey or greyish-brown; Fl. to 18 cm lg., white; Fr. 5 cm Ø, rather broadly spherical; S. black, glossy. - Origin? Never recollected. A robust grafting stock."


-----------------------------------

A few of Backeberg's graft images

Backeberg 1961 &1977 includes some grafted specimens.

A common opinion appears to be that all of the stocks shown below are pachanoi but I'd suggest that what follows may want a little more examination as it seems very likely that most spiny pachanoids appearing in grafts are actually macrogonus. I have included examples of both for enabling comparison. Pachanoi most certainly exists as a number of spiny forms but we should recall in Backeberg's 1959 key are these valuable words -- ones that he repeatedly iterates elsewhere throughout his various comments concerning pachanoi:

"Stacheln sehr kurz oder fehlend"

"Spines very short or absent"

And again in Backeberg 1959:

" Abb. 1074 Trichocereus pachanoi Br&R ist eine der besten Pfropfunterlagen, durch klebrigen Saft, fehlende Stacheln und auch bei zunehmendem Alter grün bleibend, in die Dicke wachsend, vom Pfröpfling nicht ausgesogen."

" Fig. 1074 Trichocereus pachanoi Br & R is one of the best rootstocks, by virtue of the sticky sap, the missing spines and that even with increasing age it remains green and growing in thickness; it is not drained by [being used as a stock for grafting].


I would suggest that Backeberg deliberately selected his plants collected from Peru based on their lack of spines. No image of pachanoi that he includes in the 1959 entry for pachanoi is not of a short-spined plant. Following his encounter with pachanoi at Huancabamba, Backeberg repeatedly praises pachanoi as a grafting choice due to it having "no" spines..


1977: plate 262

post-900-0-59106700-1439837671_thumb.jpg


1977: plate 297

post-900-0-24221500-1439837763_thumb.jpg

Backeberg 1940

post-900-0-53606300-1439837820_thumb.jpg

Backeberg 1961

post-900-0-41189600-1439837891_thumb.jpg

Those all look very typical for pachanoi. Compare to what is most likely macrogonus below.

Pachanoi, especially if seedlings, can be spiny so it seems unwise to draw any firm conclusions about my suggested ID but do compare these to Berger's graft that was shown earlier.
It is certain that macrogonus was a common graft choice for many years in Europe (prior to pachanoi's arrival) so it is also reasonable to assume it will be found depicted in *at least some* of the known photographs of grafted cacti.

Grafted plant from Backeberg 1961 Die Cactaceae v. 5:

post-900-0-66183200-1439838012_thumb.jpg

Backeberg 1977: plate 396

post-900-0-22710100-1439837954_thumb.jpg

Grafted plant from Backeberg 1961

post-900-0-25906300-1439838130_thumb.jpg


More potential macrogonus grafts from Backeberg 1940 & 1942 Kakteenkunde

post-900-0-49674200-1439838188_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16626900-1439838224_thumb.jpg

Compare the potential macrogonus grafting stocks above to the column in Kreuzinger 1935 and also the assorted grafting stocks in Fric 1931-1932. (Both are above in chronological order.)
Fric would not have been able to have grafts already growing on pachanoi during or before 1931 if Backeberg’s claim about introducing pachanoi to horticulture in 1931 has any validity.

-----------------------------------

D. N. Smith. 1982
David N. Smith 2456 was collected in 1982.

I do not know why it was decided that it was a macrogonus. The following suggests that David Smith made the determination initially as a Trichocereus species when he made the collection in 1982 and apparently changed it to macrogonus. His is apparently the only name involved with the identification.

Current Determination Trichocereus macrogonus (Salm-Dyck) Riccob. Family: Cactaceae
Determined By:
Previous Determinations Trichocereus (A. Berger) Riccob. Family: Cactaceae

Determined By:
Collection Information
Collectors
David N. Smith
Collector Team
David N. Smith
Collection Number 2456
Collection Date 01 October 1982
Location Peru, Junín, Tarma
Coordinate 11°22'S 075°42'W (-11.3666667, -75.7000000)
Elevation 2890 m
Herbaria ASU, MO, SI, TEX

Description
Erect to 3 m; branched; stem with 7 (occasionally 9) ribs; flowers white, heavy sweet odor, day flowering, flowers attract many small bees. "Chunast (Quechua); medicinal, used as poltis [sic] to reduce inflamations [sic].
Locality
Between Acobamba and Palca, 19 km from Tarma. Talus slopes; N-facing; Trichocereus, Furcraea and Agave.


Smith states this to be day flowering but since most of these open at night after dark and persist through the day until hot (and sometimes even opening a second day if cool and not pollinated) it seems probable that was also the case for this plant and it was already open the morning when Smith encountered it?

MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN HERBARIUM (MO)
Type Specimens
• NT: Cereus macrogonus Salm-Dyck. - Cacteae in Horto Dyckensi Cultae 203. 1849[1850]. (Cact. Hort. Dyck.) (SI)
◦ Neotype designated by: Albesiano, S. & R. Kiesling. 2012. Identity and neotypification of Cereus macrogonus, the type species of the genus Trichocereus (Cactaceae). Haseltonia 17: 32.

• INT: Cereus macrogonus Salm-Dyck. - Cacteae in Horto Dyckensi Cultae 203. 1849[1850]. (Cact. Hort. Dyck.) (MO)


Specimen Smith, David Nelson - 2456
Type of Cereus macrogonus Salm-Dyck

Bar code MO-2134163

Copyright MBG


Images

Smith - 2456 - Peru

The Missouri Botanical Garden's herbarium sheet is viewable there or at

http://www.tropicos.org/Image/85856

It is also worth looking at some closeups

post-900-0-72708200-1439838400_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44099400-1439838428_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-56186800-1439838466_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-27611800-1439838503_thumb.jpg

Smith’s collection site

post-900-0-74268300-1439838580_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-61867800-1439838614_thumb.jpg

Smith’s collection site (Tarma included for orientation)


-----------------------------------

E. F. Anderson. 2001.
The Cactus Family

post-900-0-43212400-1439838663_thumb.jpg

Flower photo from p 273.

p 272
Echinopsis macrogona (Salm-Dyck) H. Friedrich & G.D. Rowley 1974
Gives as references:
Friedrich & Rowley 1974
And as synonyms:
Cereus macrogonus Salm-Dyck 1850
Trichocereus macrogonus Riccobono 1909

" Plants shrubby with several erect stems 2-3 m (6.6-9.8 ft) high. Stems cylindrical, stiff, blue-green, 5-9 cm (2-3.5 in) in diameter. Ribs 6-9, prominent, rounded, with narrow furrows between. Areoles gray, 1.5-2m (0.6-0.8 in.) apart. Spines needle-like, yellowish to brown. Central spines 1-3, spreading, 3-5 cm (1.2-2 in.) long. Radial spines 6-9, spreading, straight, to 2 cm (0.8 in.) long. Flowers borne near the stem tips, showy, white, to 18 cm (7.1 in.) long. Distribution: Bolivia."

post-900-0-87576600-1439838758_thumb.jpg

Edward F. Anderson in Bolivia

A significant problem arises in this description that Anderson did not include enough words to resolve.

Anderson’s description diverges by introducing yellow as a spine color, changing awl-shaped/subulate to needle-shaped/acicular. He does not specify how they were assigned the identity of Trichocereus macrogonus. He also does not include any information to indicate why he made these changes. He does not include any details or give reference to any locality information concerning the plants he discusses or depicts. He also does not list any herbarium specimens or mention what bona fide Trichocereus macrogonus that he examined. Sadly, he died long before those questions could be answered.

I am only guessing that Hunt and/or Knize or the Ramirez brothers may have guided Anderson to this population. It otherwise seems strange that, as did Hunt 1999, Anderson gives the occurrence only as "Bolivia".

See more words and images concerning the known collections of Knize and the Ramirez brothers elsewhere in this work.

-----------------------------------

D. H. Hunt & ICSG. 2006.
The New Cactus Lexicon


post-900-0-06476600-1439838877_thumb.jpg

David Hunt 2011
p 97

" Described from sterile specimen, presumably received by S-D from Berlin, but without source data. Modern descriptions deviate from the original, and the name may be misapplied (though it is the type of the name Trichocereus Ricc.!) As now understood, E. macrogona hort. is said to be a good grafting stock"


Hunt refers to B: 04109. I cannot ascertain for certain but suspect this may be in reference to the basionym reference number in the KEW's herbaria records?


Hunt also indicates that the name macrogonus is best if abandoned. (No argument with the wisdom of that!)


Hunt does not mention any modern descriptions by name; I do not know to which descriptions he refers.

His two only two references are Salm-Dyck 1850 and Friedrich & Rowley 1974 IOS Bulletin 3(3): 96t.

I'm also puzzled by the phrase "As now understood", as the old macrogonus was also well known as a good grafting stock throughout much of its history.

-----------------------------------

Okazaki et al. 2011.
Phytochemistry, 72 (1): 136–146.
“Triterpenoid saponins from Echinopsis macrogona (Cactaceae).”

11 triterpene saponins were reported to have been isolated from Echinopsis macrogona:
pachanosides C1, E1, F1 and G1 (pachanane type)
bridgesides A1, C1, C2, D1, D2, E1 and E2 (oleanane type)

As for WHAT was examined:

"E. macrogona H. Friedrich and G.D. Rowley, was cultivated originally at the Japan Cactus Planning Co. (Fukushima City, Fukushima, Japan). The cactus was identified by Dr. H. Yuasa. A voucher specimen (MPU-C-02-1) is deposited at our laboratory."

It is almost certain that Japan Cactus Planning Co. would have used seeds from Knize or Ramirez. Or at least, I have not been able to locate any vendor of seeds that used stock from a source other than them. The Ramirez brothers are a separate company but can't be considered to represent different seed as they have been doing Knize's seed collecting for some years.
Due to the date Okazaki's plants could have originated from Peru or Bolivia as macrogonus from both countries were being offered by 2011.


-----------------------------------

S. Albesiano & R. Kiesling. 2012.

Albesiano & Kiesling 2012 designated Trichocereus macrogonus David N. Smith 2456 (collected from Tarma, Junin, Peru in 1982) as their neotype in an interesting attempt at resurrecting both the genus Trichocereus and the original Type species Trichocereus macrogonus.
They proposed three major changes:

The genus Trichocereus being resurrected; with Trichocereus macrogonus being preserved as the TYPE for the genus.

Trichocereus pachanoi being made a subspecies of Trichocereus macrogonus.

Trichocereus peruvianus disappearing due to being completely absorbed into Trichocereus macrogonus.

Madsen's drawing of Trichocereus pachanoi was used for their illustration of the new species (Madsen had lumped Trichocereus peruvianus into Trichocereus pachanoi.)

This paper contains some good work accompanied by a number of perplexing comments, including:

1) "We cannot know if he [backeberg] had subsequently changed his opinion or simply forgot his own note"

"However, we find in that work [1959] no reference to his 1941 note, nor to his trip to Peru and his own finding of T. macrogonus in the wild there."

Clearly Backeberg 1959 did not adequately discuss why he decided to suddenly split Trichocereus macrogonus but Albesiano & Kiesling were apparently inadequately familiar with their cited reference material as Backeberg 1959 clearly did preserve Peru as a possible place of origin for Trichocereus macrogonus, and (under the entry for T. peruvianus) does include the statement;.

"Die Identifizierung dieser Art mit Tr macrogonus (KKde., 20. 1941) kann ich nicht aufrechterhalten."

"I can no longer support my position in KKde., 20, 1941 equating this species with Tr. macrogonus."

2) "Krainz's reference (1975) is confusing. Under the heading Trichocereus macrogonus, he described a Trichocereus species that agrees with the original description, and provided a photo of a specimen, cultivated at his own institution in Switzerland, that shows a big flower and surely corresponds to Trichocereus. But he also includes two other photos, of plants cultivated at a Spanish garden, showing fruiting stems which seem to correspond to a Pilosocereus species, judging from their depressed, dehiscent fruits. Very likely he was mixing up different plants under that name, as Schumann appears to have done (vide supra)."
[They go on to note Krainz as giving Rio de Janeiro, a point which certainly suggests that Krainz had somehow missed a number of publications about Trichocereus macrogonus.]

There is nothing about those features in the fruit images in Krainz that should be regarded as confusing (at least not to anyone who is familiar with the fruit on Peruvian Trichocereus peruvianus, bear in mind Rose & Rose had not seen it flower so their voucher and description did not include fruit or flower). This subject needs to be broken into two pieces of clarification but most of the background has already been covered.

2a) Concerning their first assertion about Krainz, Trichocereus peruvianus in some of the northern part of its range not uncommonly has fruits such as are shown in the image in Krainz. This is also true of the type locality near Matucana.

post-900-0-78829300-1439839197_thumb.jpg

Krainz

post-900-0-88196100-1439839277_thumb.jpg

T. peruvianus with fruit near Matucana, Peru. Image from Grizzly

post-900-0-47423000-1439839349_thumb.jpg

T. peruvianus P.C.Hutchison 543

Collected farther downriver along the Rio Rimac, near Surco, Peru.

post-900-0-81593300-1439839416_thumb.jpg

A T. peruvianus at UC Berkeley

See more images in the photo section for comparison.

Words were similarly leveled against Schumann by Berger for noting a bare ovary. From a distance, even if 6 m in the air, this flower might conceivably appear to be naked or nearly so. (Recall that Schumann did mention hairy bristly flowers in the same breath.)

post-900-0-84160700-1439855127_thumb.jpg

Trichocereus macrogonus at the Huntington

2b) On their second point, the fruit of Krainz appears to have been damaged by a frugivore rather than being an example showing natural dehiscence. Or at least that is a very typical for that sort of damage.

Compare the fruit in Krainz (below) to the images immediately following it. (Keep in mind that Albesiano & Kiesling are presenting these two points as features, in an attempt to argue that these two images from Krainz are actually depicting a Pilosocereus fruit rather than a Trichocereus fruit.)

post-900-0-66793900-1439839488_thumb.jpg

Krainz

post-900-0-08641400-1439839531_thumb.jpg

T. scopulicola in NSW; image from Erik

post-900-0-37075100-1439839654_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-24266900-1439839688_thumb.jpg

Plant growing at Ruth Bancroft Gardens; mislabelled "Cereus sp."


Curiously the number of ribs are given as 7-8 despite other workers incorporating 6 (including in the original description) and also 9 ribs. There is also this next photograph from the Type locale above Matucana showing 5 ribs which suggests field work would be of value.

post-900-0-29171100-1439854616_thumb.jpg

Considering what they were attempting, there appears to be too few specimen being considered for the chloroplast DNA analysis that was given as the basis for this revision attempt.

Two areas in particular appear sparse in the available data and supporting evidence:

1. There is not a clear indication of what specimens were examined in the supporting molecular study for reaching their conclusions. Or at least the authors do not clearly specify what was used to provide the samples that were used determine synonymity of Trichocereus pachanoi, Trichocereus peruvianus and Trichocereus macrogonus.

In that list of materials examined for those three in Albesiano & Terrezas, there are only the same herbarium material listed in this paper, but without Britton & Rose's peruvianus, no live plants, and no mention of any macrogonus:

The two included are "T. pachanoi Britton & Rose. Perú. J. N. Rose et al. 22806 (NY). F. Ritter 1467 (U). " (Peru is only partially accurate) and three are listed for "T. peruvianus Britton & Rose. Bolivia. L. Cayola et al. 1533 (LPB), 1534 (LPB), R. Kiesling et al. 10041 (LPB)." (In Albesiano & Kiesling they DO make reference to Britton & Rose's lectotype of Trichocereus peruvianus but at no point is it indicated they actually analyzed that material or included any live material from Matucana.)

2. Both a morphological and a molecular study were said to serve as the basis for Albesiano & Kiesling's work and the list of materials examined in Albesiano & Terrazas 2012 was said to include " Taxa, with information on the country, collector’s name, specimen number and herbarium where it is kept, GenBank accessions (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=nucleotide) ."

Concerning macrogonus, no live materials for any of the three taxa being combined are indicated, no GenBank accessions, and there is no clear indication about what was used for the morphological study versus what was used for the molecular study. A search of the GenBank database has yielded no record of any data from T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus or T. macrogonus. Similarly a search of the NCBI databases yielded no evidence of work involving specimens under any of those three species names (other than a set of mislinks to a paper on T. chiloensis).

All three of the specimens that were in both Albesiano & Terrazas and Albesiano & Kiesling listed as being Trichocereus peruvianus came from Bolivia. As this represents a significant expansion of the reported range for the species Trichocereus peruvianus it would be valuable to know why these were regarded as Trichocereus peruvianus rather than Trichocereus macrogonus (as Edward Anderson, Hunt, and no doubt others would have presented them).

The designated neotype for T. macrogonus, DN Smith's specimen, is not listed among the specimens examined (a strange omission in light of the conclusions of their paper merging Trichocereus pachanoi and Trichocereus peruvianus into Trichocereus macrogonus). It is unclear how was the determination was made that it was actually a Trichocereus macrogonus -- or why. Smith appears to be the person making the identification and died in 1991.

If Smith's plant WAS examined as a representative of peruvianus there is a further concern that should be noted. The forms appearing around Tarma are significantly divergent in both flower and body morphology from those of Rose's Trichocereus peruvianus TYPE as can still be readily encountered in abundance above the Rio Rimac near Matucana so Smith's collection is not an appropriate choice. Backeberg & Rauh attempted to introduce the name Trichocereus tarmaensis for plants from that vicinity and most modern workers regard it as being closer to cuzcoensis and puquiensis than to peruvianus.

The specimen listed in Albesiano & Terrezas 2012 as T. peruvianus L. Cayola et al. 1533 (LPB) was collected in 2004 and was determined to be Trichocereus macrogonus by Albesiano in 2013. However, it was apparently originally deposited under the names Trichocereus lageniformis and Trichocereus cf. lageniformis by Cayola (i.e. the plant formerly known as T. bridgesii!). Both identifications were made by A. Fuentes (USZ).

Similarly the specimen listed as T. peruvianus L. Cayola et al. 1534 (LPB) was determined to be Trichocereus cf. lageniformis by A. Fuentes (USZ) when it was submitted to LPB. Its name in the herbarium did not appear to have changed as of 25 Sept. 2015. The former was said to have reddish spines and the later to have white spines.

I'm not trying to suggest Albesiano was wrong in her correction of these identifications, she is very familiar with Trichocereus bridgesii, it is worth pointing out that, for that very reason, more words on the subject of those particular Bolivian plants would be of value and wide interest as a rather broad range presently exists for what is regarded to be Trichocereus bridgesii in horticulture.

Their third specimen listed as a peruvianus was R. Kiesling et al. 10041 which was was collected in NW Bolivia near La Paz.

Taken all together that does not really permit a fair representation of the Peruvian species Trichocereus peruvianus.


In their presentation of those three Bolivian specimens as being Trichocereus peruvianus, the distribution of Trichocereus peruvianus is being expanded to include Bolivia. It is commonly held that a geographic barrier exists preventing cactus species flow in-between the highlands of Peru and the country of Bolivia. Trichocereus pachanoi for example is believed to have been introduced into Bolivia (and Chile and Argentina) entirely by human hands.

More details seem warranted about those two of their Bolivian collections and how they were identified as Trichocereus peruvianus for the study of Albesiano & Terrazas 2012 rather than as Trichocereus macrogonus as was being asserted in Albesiano & Kiesling 2012. This is an not an impertinent question considering that two of what appear listed as specimens examined in Albesiano & Terrazas were submitted to LPB as "T. bridgesii" (T. lageniformis) and only one is noted as having been changed to Trichocereus macrogonus by Albesiano in 2013. Identified as Trichocereus peruvianus in Albesiano & Terrazas 2012, they appeared to serve as part of the basis for equating Trichocereus peruvianus and Trichocereus macrogonus (in Albesiano & Kiesling) through their comparison to Trichocereus pachanoi. That feels perilously close to circular reasoning.

It is hoped that the next round of work from Albesiano's massive undertaking in creating a revision of Trichocereus adds light to these areas.

Trichocereus macrogonus, sensu Karel Knize & the Ramirez Brothers, is not just well known from Bolivia, it presently comprises the vast majority of the "Trichocereus macrogonus" represented in horticulture worldwide. At several points Albesiano & Kiesling comment about the existence of the name macrogonus in horticulture, at one point even referring to it as referring to a well known plant, so they surely had some familiarity with it and it is hard to believe they would be unfamiliar with Knize. (I would certainly not fault them for not wanting to give his name any credit in print.) Regardless it seems odd to suggest Schultes & Hofmann were Anderson's information source. Bolivia is the only country listed for Trichocereus macrogonus in at least one one of their references, Hunt 1999, (this claim apparently going back at least as far as Borg) while Peru is the only country listed for Trichocereus peruvianus in that same work by Hunt.


The welcomed material presented in Albesiano & Kiesling presently stops short of supporting their case with regards to their concept of the species macrogonus but has taken great strides towards that end. It is hoped that someday that data from a Trichocereus peruvianus sample from Matucana will be added to their study in addition to the herbarium sheet of Rose & Rose. I look forward to Albesiano's ongoing work encompassing Peruvian cacti and to reading the results of her study of Bolivian cacti.

I have not been able to get answers from either author outside of a kind invitation by Dr. Kiesling to come to South America for field work.

-----------------------------------

S. Albesiano & T. Terrazas. 2012.
Haseltonia 17: 3–23.
"Cladistic Analysis Of Trichocereus (Cactaceae: Cactoideae: Trichocereeae)
Based On Morphological DATA And Chloroplast DNA Sequences."

This work by Sofia Albesiano & Teresa Terrazas is pertinent to our discussion only as it is ostensibly contains the listing of specimens examined for the conclusions appearing in Albesiano & Kiesling 2012. However, Albesiano & Terrazas 2012 does not actually include anything referred to as Trichocereus macrogonus except on a graph showing their results.

The corresponding content in Albesiano & Terrazas 2012 has been discussed above under Albesiano & Kiesling 2012.

The corresponding content in Albesiano & Terrazas 2012 has been discussed above under Albesiano & Kiesling 2012.

One other element caught my curiosity, based on what was said we should be able to assume that all of the molecular work was of samples taken from the herbarium specimens listed. It could be that the small amount of tissue in Rose's voucher was deemed inadequate to permit sacrificing a sample without compromising the specimen? Or perhaps the specimen itself was regarded to be inadequate as in between it and Britton & Rose's description this sterile sampling contains rather abbreviated information.

On the subject of herbarium specimens, neither paper included (or mentioned) Weber's Cereus macrogonus flower and ovary submitted in 1904 or Moll's Cereus macrogonus branch tip from 1914.

-----------------------------------

P.M. Jørgensen. 2015.
Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares de Bolivia

Peter Møller Jørgensen, Michael Harley Nee, Stephan Georg Beck (Editors), Missouri Botanical Garden Press, ISBN-13: 9781930723719. (2-Volume) World/ChecklistMonograph Volume: 127. £135.00 $206/€185 approx.

This apparently, according to Tropicos, published an extensive listing of synonyms for Trichocereus macrogonus which it presents as the accepted name.

Cereus macrogonus Salm-Dyck

Cereus pachanoi (Britton & Rose) Werderm.

Cereus rosei Werderm.

Echinopsis macrogona (Salm-Dyck) Friedrich & G.D. Rowley

Echinopsis pachanoi (Britton & Rose) Friedrich & G.D. Rowley

Echinopsis peruviana (Britton & Rose) Friedrich & G.D. Rowley

Echinopsis peruviana subsp. puquiensis (Rauh & Backeb.) Ostolaza

Echinopsis puquiensis (Rauh & Backeb.) Friedrich & G.D. Rowley

Echinopsis santaensis (Rauh & Backeb.) Friedrich & G.D. Rowley

Echinopsis trichosa (Cárdenas) Friedrich & G.D. Rowley

Trichocereus huanucoensis H. Johnson

Trichocereus pachanoi Britton & Rose

Trichocereus pachanoi f. peruvianus (Britton & Rose) F. Ritter

Trichocereus peruvianus Britton & Rose

Trichocereus puquiensis Rauh & Backeb.

Trichocereus santaensis Rauh & Backeb.

Trichocereus tacnaensis F. Ritter

Trichocereus torataensis F. Ritter

Trichocereus trichosus Cárdenas

I look forward to acquiring a copy and learning more. As might be anticipated both Kiesling & Albesiano's names are listed among the participating authorities.


-----------------------------------

Joël Lodé 2015
“Taxonomy of the Cactaceae” (supplement)
Editions Cactus-Adventures

I have only seen the synonyms list online and not yet the book. This is said to be based on molecular work and I look forward to reading more details soon.

Trichocereus cuzcoensis
• Trichocereus tarmaensis
This confirms an opinion long-voiced by Michael S. Smith and others.

Trichocereus huancayensis = Trichocereus sp.?

Trichocereus macrogonus [subsp. macrogonus]

Trichocereus macrogonus subsp. pachanoi
• Trichocereus pachanoi
• Trichocereus santaensis
• Trichocereus scopulicola

Trichocereus macrogonus subsp. peruvianus
• Trichocereus peruvianus
• Trichocereus puquiensis
• Trichocereus tacnaensis
• Trichocereus torataensis


-----------------------------------

That was the newest paper on the subject. Please let me know if I missed anything.


There is one thing I hope is clear from this. We recognize Trichocereus macrogonus based on how we define it so when discussing plants such as macrogonus and peruvianus so we need to be careful to meaningfully define whatever we mean when applying those two names.

-----------------------------------

Some Cereus weirdness

Let's take care of a few of the loose screws that emerged during that.

Cereus bolivianus

Around the turn of the last century a nomen nudum from Weber appears.
It was mentioned in passing in Schumann 1902 Montasschrift für Kakteenkunde 12 (2): 18-25. “Succulente Reiseerinnerungen.”

p. 20 (mention is on 21)

post-900-0-26620300-1439851707_thumb.jpg

p. 21

post-900-0-62551900-1439851780_thumb.jpg


Britton & Rose 2: 136

post-900-0-52484700-1439851882_thumb.jpg

The closest name in horticulture I have encountered is the Trichocereus bolivianus
(such as is in Koehres 2007 seed listing).
I am unfamiliar with what it looks like when grown out to adulthood. MS Smith shows a
very densely spiny seedling that will probably grow to become columnar; other people online show
something that looks more akin to a bridgesii.

-----------------------------------

Cereus hempelianus

Britton & Rose 2: 136

post-900-0-35369000-1439851975_thumb.jpg

Friedrich Fobe. 1907. MfK 51-55

post-900-0-34958800-1439852028_thumb.jpg

" Betreffs der blaugrünen Cereen halte ich den Cereus macogronus wie schon oben bemerket, für eine vortreffliche Unterlage; aber es gibt davon zwei Formen, eine dünnere, jedenfalls der echte Cereus macrogonus and eine starke, mehr balugrüne Varietat. Schon der verstorbene Herr Bauer in Copitz was der Meinung, dass letzterer eine besondere Art Wäre, die er als Cereus Hempelianus bennant wissen wollte, under diese ist als Unterlage nicht brauchbar, sogar die leicht wachsenden Sorten wie Echinocereus caespitosus unter anderem haben ein kurzes Leben darauf."

" As for the blue-green Cerei, I think that the Cereus macrogonus, as was observed earlier, is an excellent grafting stock; but there are two forms of them. The more slender one, in any case is the real Cereus macrogonus and there is a more robust, more blue-green Variety. The late Mr. Bauer in Copitz was of the opinion that the latter was a special kind that he wanted to become designated as Cereus Hempelianus. These can not be used as a grafting stock, even the easy growing varieties like Echinocereus caespitosus (among others) have a short life it."

I have to wonder about the identity of the stout pachanoid shown to the rear left in Kakteenkunde 1935.

Named for a Saxon business owner named Georg Hempel.
Hempel was a distinguished businessman and factory owner who was appointed Royal Deputy (Abgeordneter der Königliche) and was Privy Councilor of Commerce (Geheimer Kommerzienrat) for Ohorn and Pulsnitz [auf Ohorn bei Pulsnitz] (Saxony)


post-900-0-25956200-1439852180_thumb.jpg

Fobe in 1934

post-900-0-83395700-1439852226_thumb.jpg

Fobe in 1935

Friedrich Fobe
14 Sept. 1864 --1941


-----------------------------------

Cereus hexagonus
J.M.C. Vellozo. 1823. Florae Fluminensis vol 5, plate 18

Fr. Jose Mariano da Conceição [a Conceptione] Vellozo (died in 1811)
also “text. ed. Netto, 752” which I cannot locate; 752 is likely a page?
See Karl Schumann 1890/1899. See also Förster 1886
This is at best a stretch to try to link with macrogonus.

plate 18 Icosandria Mongynia Cactus Hexagonus

post-900-0-91193400-1439852279_thumb.jpg


E.G. v. Steudel. 1840.
Nomenclator Botanicus. Editio secunda. 1: 336. (aka “Nom. Ed.”)
Steudel included an interesting, and probably quite sound, view of fig 18 (and also fig 19) from Vellozo that nicely cleared up hexagonus (and heptgonus) as not being macrogonus and listing them both as synonyms of Cereus peruvianus.
Does not mention macrogonus.
p. 336; Link & Otto appear as authors of Cereus tephracanthus:

post-900-0-37370800-1439852666_thumb.jpg

p. 334; Under Cereus:

post-900-0-79406100-1439852380_thumb.jpg


Also p. 335; Under Cereus:

post-900-0-67309800-1439852424_thumb.jpg


Förster 1886. 2: 703 had shared Steudel’s opinion

post-900-0-08429500-1439852494_thumb.jpg


-----------------------------------

Cereus heptagonus
Vellozo 1823 fig 19. See the speculation by Werdermann 1933.
See the far nicer synonyms listed above by Steudel 1840 & Förster 1886.

post-900-0-14564300-1439852569_thumb.jpg

-----------------------------------


Cereus tetracanthus
Cereus tephracanthus
var. bolivianus


Britton & Rose 2: 136

This association was a speculative stretch by Britton & Rose that is clearly incorrect.

post-900-0-23340700-1439835270_thumb.jpg

J. Labouret. 1855. Revue Horticole IV. 4: 24-28
p. 25

post-900-0-90348500-1439835326_thumb.jpg


Schumann 1899 (rather than 1897 as given by Br. & R.): 80-81

post-900-0-37040300-1439835369_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-80128200-1439835402_thumb.jpg


Vincenzo Riccobono. 1909. Bollettino delle R[eale] Orto Botanico di Palermo. 8: 244-245.

post-900-0-35927200-1439835440_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-49566800-1439835492_thumb.jpg


This is considered to be a recognized species.
Eriocereus tetracanthus (Labour.) Riccob. AKA
Harrisia tetracantha (Labour.) D.R. Hunt AKA
Roseocereus tetracanthus (Labour.) Backeb.
More modern molecular work places it in Trichocereus.



-----------------------------------


Field collections bearing the name macrogonus


Karel Knize macrogonus collections

I believe this is what Hunt referred to by modern views deviating from the original.
Some might therefore question why it is of value to include Knize. The point to keep in mind is that Knize has been in business for more than 40 years and during this time has been a major, and perhaps even the primary, seed supplier of South American cactus seeds to the world's commercial seed houses. The vast majority of all macrogonus seeds sold on the planet, including in Europe, has come from Knize. The material that was analyzed by Agurell almost certainly was grown from Knize seeds.


Knize has listed at least five macrogonus offerings:

KK923
From Cieneguillas, Bolivia 3000 m (in 2004 listings although it has also appeared in sales lists at least as far back as the 1982 seed listings. I lack anything older from Knize.)

KK1422
From Villa Abecia, Bolivia 2500 m (in 2004 listing although given as 2800 m in his earlier field guide of his collection numbers. I lack an intact set of Knize literature so don't know when it first appeared.)

KK2151
From Ayacucho, Peru 2600 m (in 2004 listing)

KK2175
From Apurimac, Pachachaca, Peru 2000m (in 2004 listing)

KK2176
From Ayacucho, Peru 2600 m (in 2004 listing)


An image of KK923 at NMCR is at http://troutsnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Trichocereus-macrogonus-KK923-NMCR_2010-d.jpg




-----------------------------------


NonKnize field collections

BLMT 49.03
Bates, Lowry, Marshall, Tomlinson; Sucre - Tarabuco, Yamparaez, Chuquisaca, Bolivia 3081; 1996/12/29
Flat ground below road on S side.
Brian Francis Bates, Martin Lowry, Timothy (Tim) David Marshall, Ralph Tomlinson

BLMT 52.01
Bates, Lowry, Marshall, Tomlinson; Yotalla, Oropeza, Chuquisaca, Bolivia; 1996/12/29
Wooded slope E of road.

BLMT 6.02
Bates, Lowry, Marshall, Tomlinson; Tarata n, El Arce, Cochabamba, Bolivia 2770m; 1996/12/19
Near cemetery on W of road, hedging.

RBC 73
Ramirez Brothers Cacti; Cieneguillas, Mendez, Tarija, Bolivia
The Ramirez brothers collect for Knize so seems likely to be the same as Knize’s KK923.



-----------------------------------

David Smith's field collection was shown earlier.

-----------------------------------



I hope that you have enjoyed this foray across the history of the name macrogonus.
I would appreciate hearing any comments and thoughts about this topic.


That is what I can presently pull together.
Clearly it is not a pretty picture.

As I've been including so many images of the authors of those papers and books, it felt only fair to include these two:

post-900-0-21827200-1439922900_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-53448700-1439922944_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66217800-1439834837_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66217800-1439834837_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-23340700-1439835270_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-90348500-1439835326_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37040300-1439835369_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-80128200-1439835402_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-35927200-1439835440_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-49566800-1439835492_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-10992300-1439836211_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-09631200-1439836280_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-36206800-1439836313.jpg

post-900-0-24482500-1439836383_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-56743000-1439836408_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-96489900-1439836442_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-35518400-1439836511_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-80765800-1439836566_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-93296800-1439836652_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-57748700-1439836693_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-25577400-1439836755_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-95892200-1439836894.jpg

post-900-0-97648700-1439836930_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-45511600-1439837454_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-22123700-1439837479_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-59106700-1439837671_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-24221500-1439837763_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-53606300-1439837820_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-41189600-1439837891_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-22710100-1439837954_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66183200-1439838012_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-25906300-1439838130_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-49674200-1439838188_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16626900-1439838224_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-72708200-1439838400_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44099400-1439838428_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-56186800-1439838466_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-27611800-1439838503_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-74268300-1439838580_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-61867800-1439838614_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-43212400-1439838663_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-87576600-1439838758_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-06476600-1439838877_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-78829300-1439839197_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-88196100-1439839277_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47423000-1439839349_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-81593300-1439839416_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66793900-1439839488_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-08641400-1439839531_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37075100-1439839654_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-24266900-1439839688_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-26620300-1439851707_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-62551900-1439851780_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-52484700-1439851882_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-35369000-1439851975_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-34958800-1439852028_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-25956200-1439852180_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-83395700-1439852226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-91193400-1439852279_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-79406100-1439852380_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-67309800-1439852424_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-08429500-1439852494_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14564300-1439852569_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37370800-1439852666_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-29171100-1439854616_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-84160700-1439855127_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-21827200-1439922900_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-53448700-1439922944_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66217800-1439834837_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-23340700-1439835270_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-90348500-1439835326_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37040300-1439835369_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-80128200-1439835402_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-35927200-1439835440_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-49566800-1439835492_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-10992300-1439836211_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-09631200-1439836280_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-36206800-1439836313.jpg

post-900-0-24482500-1439836383_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-56743000-1439836408_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-96489900-1439836442_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-35518400-1439836511_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-80765800-1439836566_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-93296800-1439836652_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-57748700-1439836693_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-25577400-1439836755_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-95892200-1439836894.jpg

post-900-0-97648700-1439836930_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-45511600-1439837454_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-22123700-1439837479_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-59106700-1439837671_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-24221500-1439837763_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-53606300-1439837820_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-41189600-1439837891_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-22710100-1439837954_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66183200-1439838012_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-25906300-1439838130_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-49674200-1439838188_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16626900-1439838224_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-72708200-1439838400_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44099400-1439838428_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-56186800-1439838466_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-27611800-1439838503_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-74268300-1439838580_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-61867800-1439838614_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-43212400-1439838663_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-87576600-1439838758_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-06476600-1439838877_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-78829300-1439839197_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-88196100-1439839277_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47423000-1439839349_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-81593300-1439839416_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66793900-1439839488_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-08641400-1439839531_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37075100-1439839654_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-24266900-1439839688_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-26620300-1439851707_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-62551900-1439851780_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-52484700-1439851882_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-35369000-1439851975_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-34958800-1439852028_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-25956200-1439852180_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-83395700-1439852226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-91193400-1439852279_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-79406100-1439852380_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-67309800-1439852424_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-08429500-1439852494_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14564300-1439852569_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37370800-1439852666_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-29171100-1439854616_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-84160700-1439855127_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-21827200-1439922900_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-53448700-1439922944_thumb.jpg

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It just makes me wonder if these early explorers were naming plants simply by differences from others they've seen

~Michael~

I think that is how botanists work even into modern times. Molecular work proceeds on similar grounds. The novel is determined by comparison with the known. As a descriptive system goes it has a internal referential reality that is based on its members. If there is motivation for finding new species, new species can be created simply by increasing the types and degree of differences that are considered significant. Hence the battle between lumpers and splitters. Its not really about science, it is about personal viewpoints and preferences. In a great many ways it is arbitrary which direction one chooses so long as the work is done well and the members being studied can be described and recognized. Obviously as either heads towards their extreme they produce useless systems due to becoming unweildy. Either from too many names, which will by natures lead to the discovery of more, or for sake of not adequately defining their subsets in a way that can be navigated. For instance if we were to collapse all to species of Opuntia, Cactus and Cereus species.

One difference between now and older botanical approaches is not just that we have more powerful tools for studying plants and their degree of relatedness but we also have a much better understanding about why it is actually as important to study populations as individuals.

One problem the early cactus collectors of Europe ran into is that virtually everything entering the significant collections were essentially just genetic snapshots snatched from the wild in the form of a clone that then were studied and written about as if they represented the wild. (Sort of a similar flaw in reasoning as people reading an alkaloid concentration in the literature and then believing that it also applied to a plant in their hands.)

Field work was often far more about a competitive drive to find the biggest and baddest and newest (and most lucrative) sort of cactus plant. Ideally one totally unlike what was known. It was fiercely competitive.

Backeberg did some field work but it appears to have only been a very few trips largely focused on seed collection. He left some fascinating accounts of those adventures though. All of that is at CactusPro's digital library under Backeberg. Even if a person doesn't read German the accompanying pictures will give a good bit of the flavor of those experiences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Also, to clarify one important thing brought up by Michael.

Any of these particular Trichs have the capacity to naturalize the right habitat and even a bit beyond it.

At what point do those become thought of as natural populations or even native flora? After we are long since dead and gone obviously but it is a question that applies to lots of things. We think of the American bison as an enduring species yet it is known to be a natural hybrid of pleistocene origin that outcompeted its parent species. It is now natural and native and a normal part of life on this continent. Similarly, it seems likely to only require some thousands of years before a number of the Trichocereus species, most especially the pachanot, will very likely be regarded as part of the native flora of the Pacific Coast of what is now California.

The earth has been rearranged dramatically by humans and even more so by plate movement, volcanism and glaciation, all of which appear to have played some role in what we are thinking of as the modern face of Cactaceae. I think we would benefit by factoring human involvement into the equation as a natural force capable of increasing or decreasing the distribution of species. If we were to do so it could greatly help quantify our actual level of impact.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

To wrap up this presentation

(and in the process hopefully adequately address a couple of questions/comments raised by Michael):

Recognizing Trichocereus macrogonus as distinct from Trichocereus peruvianus.

1) Recognizing Trichocereus macrogonus as being distinct from Trichocereus peruvianus.

A primary difference generally requires older growth to confirm. That being macrogonus becomes more densely spiny and forms more spines on older areoles (in the literature this is given as up to 20 spines). One other feature that presently seems promising is the color of the hairs on the axils of the scales on the ovary and floral tube. There are assorted other features one might like to use but all of them at best are only "commonly true" or "largely true" and are in need of study based on field work in Bolivia and Peru. One nice thing about most of the existing macrogonus, whether they prove to be the same plant as was in Europe pre-Knize or not, we at least know something about their point of origin.

There is also one not so subtle thing to keep in mind, when we talk about a plant by a given name and we say that we can recognize a plant by some features or distinguishing characteristics, what we are doing is basing that recognition on a set of characters that we have created and assigned to the name as it exists inside of our mind. That might sound like I'm just stating the obvious but the failure to adequately compare our mental set of notes with each other can readily mislead us into thinking we are discussing a singe thing when using a given name.

Then there are some observations which are more difficult to describe in a way that can be easily evaluated on demand. For instance many years ago it was brought to my attention by a commercial grower in Central Texas that he had noticed if he introduced peruvianus into sun too rapidly it burned badly but he had not ever experienced this with his macrogonus. (Grown from Knize's seeds that had been resold to him by Koehres.) He had observed this to be true even with relatively young seedlings. To test his observation, he tried hardening off a flat of <1" in diameter macrogonus seedlings by planting them in full sun in a garden bed. Every single one not only lived but thrived; creating squat, fat and very rugged looking plants. I have never seen peruvianus seedlings be as tough and hardy. Modern macrogonus also appears to have a greater cold tolerance than does peruvianus.

When I say that I can recognize a macrogonus apart from a peruvianus I can only say that I can distinguish a macrogonus apart from a peruvianus based on my understanding of how those two things are defined for me. That holds the potential for misunderstanding if people assume everyone's definition is identical. I would posit this underlies much of the trouble we can easily encounter in horticulture.

Our personal definition may be based on published accounts but to do so literally is not particularly sane as those published accounts are not exactly fully in alignment with each other even if they are ostensibly about the same species. Some of the accounts that we have mentioned appear to contain a surprising degree of politically motivated decisions.

I have come to believe that the primary determinants used by modern field collectors for identifying macrogonus from the wild have been presence of predominantly grey felt on new areoles, areoles that are closely set and producing up to 8-20 spines on the older ones with 1-3 of those being stronger centrals. (Peruvianus said to have 6-9 radials and 1-3 centrals.) Spines with darker tips are also clearly being held in some favor. I suspect this is why in 2004 one could find macrogonus being offered from Peru. Not that macrogonus was suddenly discovered in Peru but I would propose what occurred was the Ramirez brothers noticed there were peruvianus in Peru with features keying to macrogonus and realized those would make good additions to their seed catalog.

Those collections, as is the case for many cacti, were made not for the sake of expanding the botanical or taxonomic understanding, they were intended to add more commercial offerings to a product line that is still sold though the world horticultural 'marketplace' supplying seeds and living material to commercial cactus producers in many nations. I suspect that had they been made by botanists, those 2004 collections could have been capable of undermining the division between macrogonus and peruvianus but instead were used to extend the range of an artificial definition involving a naturally occurring morphological variant. I suspect that their existence might be viewed as the possible source of death for the definition now called macrogonus. This is an area well worth exploring.

With that in mind, let's ponder some of the curious details given in Backeberg 1959 concerning how those two species are said to differ. Among the features that caused Backeberg to claim peruvianus was macrogonus in 1941 is, in 1959, only now assigned to peruvianus (a habit expanded to include both lying to hanging) and Riccobono (and Backeberg's earlier) comments about arching back to the ground were completely dropped from the revised macrogonus description.

Trichocereus peruvianus from Backeberg 1959, plate 1059
post-900-0-96870800-1440286360_thumb.jpg

Trichocereus rosei 1 (Field)
post-900-0-47923200-1440286418_thumb.jpg

Trichocereus macrogonus (Huntington)

post-900-0-32276300-1440286487_thumb.jpg

Bretloth has some nice shots of Field's macrogonus showing this form of growth (at trichoserious.net). The "cover" image for this work shows that growth habit as well.

Trichocereus lucernatus is another Trichocereus species that shares that type of cool looking growth.
post-900-0-98293400-1440288696_thumb.jpg
This is only one of the species that became lost in the wake of Backeberg 1956.

Hair color, thickened spine base (those of macrogonus now being said by Backeberg to be "awl-like"), spine numbers, height and spine colors are suggested to differ in Backeberg 1959. As was stated earlier, I have grown to believe that this descriptive view from Backeberg was not entirely transparent and was re-crafted to permit the recognition of puquiensis, santaensis, schoenii, and tarmensis. Santaensis otherwise would have merged with either the macrogonus or pachanoi sorts and the other three would have been recognized as being allied with cuzcoensis or peruvianus, depending on the authority viewing them.

As for recognizing Trichocereus macrogonus.

There are some descriptive features that can be useful, most of the time, but I'd rather view those as trends rather than descriptive features. The reason for that is that trends can change for unclear reasons. This is important to understand as the plant itself is simply not always in alignment with the description. The incredible capacity for changing morphology based on age and different conditions of growth is a confounding fact for anyone trying to create a key for Trichocereus.

A young macrogonus or peruvianus tip in a pot can be incredibly different in appearance compared to a branch tip on a large old plant. Similarly a sturdy foot tall seedling can be strikingly different in appearance from a similarly sized rooted cutting. Recognizing a species needs to be able to include what we can see.

Let's look at a few images of a single macrogonus cultivar that has been sold as "RS0004".

This originated in the Carlyle macrogonus collection. Which came about as Don Carlyle was a macrogonus collector. He sold his collection to Kakster around 1995. It is highly probable that this lineage began with Knize's seeds. It is also well known to this website. Solitarea has commented on obtaining RS0004 from Kakster. Solitarea then provided it to Osprey. The name Osprey has stuck to those beautiful plants better than RS0004 and a person can find many images of that plant online; including at this website. In nice conditions it can be strikingly gorgeous.
For sake of illustrating that variability I'm including some images.

These first few images are from years ago when I still lived in Texas.
post-900-0-68184000-1440288766_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-82643000-1440288804_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-23826600-1440288886_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14934600-1440288919_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-49815600-1440288980_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39923800-1440289020_thumb.jpg

These are how that same macrogonus clone is looking now after being moved into a shady redwood forest in Mendocino County:

post-900-0-82357000-1440289097_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-03310000-1440289171_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39000800-1440289226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-53457300-1440289292_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-96441900-1440359679_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-10207800-1440359726_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-25608700-1440359777_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-41118000-1440359835_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-01837300-1440359883_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-22974900-1440359925_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-22784000-1440359961_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-34884100-1440360012_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-23670700-1440360052_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-86155700-1440360097_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47261800-1440360142_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-71924700-1440360191_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-98823300-1440360226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-07120600-1440360267_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-41443700-1440360310_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-57378400-1440360358_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-57378400-1440360358_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-48954200-1440360424_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-10209000-1440360666_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-45262000-1440360710_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-59278800-1440360770_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-33664100-1440360813_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-66325000-1440360847_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-36993100-1440360885_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-64833300-1440360926_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-78788700-1440360957_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-88092400-1440360988_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-25116500-1440361030_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-12501000-1440361095_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-00007600-1440361214_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44866500-1440361264_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-00663300-1440361304_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-76952700-1440361345_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-73889000-1440361389_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-44620600-1440361441_thumb.jpg

There were a handful of specimens shown above but all were of the same clone growing near each other in two distinct zones of sun exposure.

It can in general be said macrogonus areoles are more closely spaced and that it has fairly short spines outside of 3-4 longer and darker ones randomly popping up on the older areoles but most of those comments are really only true in cultivated containerized and greenhouse-grown plants. As a plant gets older or especially if it can enjoy growing in the earth they get incredibly spiny with long spines. Peruvianus does something similar but I don't think it is nearly as intensely spiny or as densely spaced as what can occur on macrogonus. Readers are strongly encouraged to form their own opinions based on actually evaluating what exists in their own world.

Some of the features that currently do appear to be useful sometimes are that in general areoles are a bit smaller and more closely spaced on macrogonus than on peruvianus (but in both cases the range expressed overlaps).

There are many morphological features that are best if regarded to be expressions of trends.

Those include hair color and also spine color.

The most consistent feature, mentioned above, does appear to be spine numbers on older areoles. Again this can overlap with peruvianus but I have not yet seen a peruvianus produce as many spines per areole as can occur on macrogonus, especially on older areoles. According to the published accounts, T. macrogonus can produce up to almost twice as many spines per areole as does a peruvianus. I've yet to find 20 (18 has been the maximum so far) but I can always find more than on peruvianus even if I have found up to 15 spines on one single areole of one peruvianus. Maybe the identity of that specimen should be questioned (see farther below) yet a glaring question still remains in my mind, do I just need to count spines on more peruvianus in order to change my opinion.

As a representative view of that these are all macrogonus RS0004:

post-900-0-88157500-1440289781_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-43729900-1440289861_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-12252000-1440289923_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-52322000-1440289992_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-72091900-1440290105_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-82019300-1440290231_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-91710900-1440290266_thumb.jpg

Compare these for example

macrogonus RS0004

post-900-0-17682200-1440290393_thumb.jpg

Trichocereus peruvianus (GF)

post-900-0-39141300-1440290498_thumb.jpg

Trichocereus peruvianus near Matucana (Photo by Grizzly)

post-900-0-99221400-1440290563_thumb.jpg

However, I have encountered this on a field collected peruvianus provided as living material by HdP in Lima:

post-900-0-16150800-1440290617_thumb.jpg


I can't say anything about what exists in the wild as I've never done field work in Peru or Bolivia. I've only seen photographs and heard accounts of what is in Peru or Bolivia. Despite trying to study whatever I have been able to locate in private collections, cactus nurseries, and in botanical gardens, I consider that field work to be indispensible for understanding. The range of variability in the cultivated plants is fascinating.
Check out the single plant at the Huntington shot over a period of some years and at different times of year as an example of how variable a single plant can be. Just in spine color alone there can be a surprising change from one year to another.

post-900-0-97816100-1440290882_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44242000-1440290922_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-83891200-1440290982_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-43655800-1440291012_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-28347700-1440291043_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-84681900-1440291078_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-32310400-1440291103_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-59810600-1440291133_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-50711300-1440291177_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-24811900-1440291206_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-68756000-1440291246_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-51800800-1440291281_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-54852400-1440291311_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69625100-1440291347_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-91118100-1440291392_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-70046400-1440291422_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-67682300-1440291460_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-85262300-1440291491_thumb.jpg

Additional images can be found farther below.

All of those photos are of a single huge plant which has been growing in the Huntington’s garden since some point in the 1930s.

The accession data is lost but its accession number of H 1306 does place it as coming into the Huntington’s hands during a period of time when Werdermann took an extended visit at the Huntington in 1933 at their invitation and named a number of their plants. I have to wonder if he perhaps brought Hertrich and Huntington a copy of T. macrogonus. It certainly would be a prized plum in any cactus collection. (It is also a matter of the Huntington's record that Backeberg had stopped by in 1931 and gave them some seedlings of bridgesii.)

That might not mean anything.

There is something I have found to be incredibly helpful with regards to this area of Trichocereus.

A really fun thing to do with different looking forms of peruvianus (or macrogonus or bridgesii or pachanoi) is to plant them side by side and watch what they start to look like over time. It is incredible how often seemingly distinctive peruvianus forms will become indistinguishable within only a few years. Similarly it is instructive to grow them under different conditions to observe how much they can diverge. (This is worth doing for other Trichocereus species as well.) It has been fascinating how few "forms" of peruvianus go on to remain distinctive with this treatment.

I presently live in a location with some truly appalling conditions for growing cacti but have somehow managed to keep a few things alive and moderately healthy despite not seeing much growth compared to how everything would be doing in the East Bay. (The vast majority of my cactus collection found more hospitable homes prior to my relocation from Texas to California.) I would estimate I have seen an inch of growth here for every foot they would have grown if I was still living in Oakland or in Texas.

These two cacti have been growing together for around a decade now. That is a macrogonus RS0004 on the left and a peruvianus (GF) on the right. They were of similar heights when planted, the peruvianus slightly taller, and they have maintained about the same diameter in the new growth. Cacti don't grow very well or much here as can be seen by comparing the images below.

post-900-0-88563600-1440291638_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-75355100-1440291706_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-04709800-1440291762_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-92136200-1440291802_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14880500-1440291864_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16344500-1440292055_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-88012000-1440292200_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-81927500-1440292092_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-92195300-1440292143_thumb.jpg

Here is another pairing of macrogonus RS0004 on the left and a peruvianus (GF) on the right.

post-900-0-48536100-1440292279_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-58576000-1440292333_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-74368900-1440292379_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-36385200-1440292436_thumb.jpg

Those were chosen entirely due to being loose cuttings. They were taken from plants growing about 10 feet away from each other; the macrogonus receiving a couple of hours more sun per day.

That first pair again, as pairs of closer views.

post-900-0-48177600-1440284798_thumb.jpg
Trichocereus-macrogonus-RS0004_July2015_IMGP7485

post-900-0-04548900-1440284854_thumb.jpg

Trichocereus-peruvianus-1-IMGP7760

post-900-0-38870900-1440285086_thumb.jpg
Trichocereus-macrogonus-RS0004-IMGP7757

post-900-0-07036000-1440285029_thumb.jpg
Trichocereus-peruvianus-1-IMGP7732

post-900-0-85591600-1440284941_thumb.jpg
Trichocereus-macrogonus-RS0004-IMGP7723

post-900-0-95923100-1440285149_thumb.jpg

Trichocereus-peruvianus-1-IMGP7762


Let's run back through the features in the published accounts and try to summarize what is found there:


1) Habit

Arching or prostrate growth as had been noted by Riccobono was one of the very features that caused Backeberg to claim peruvianus was macrogonus in 1941 when finding prostrate plants near Matucana in the Peruvian highlands. In 1959 this is only assigned to peruvianus, adding a reference to Rauh finding them hanging, and it was curiously entirely omitted from the macrogonus description.

Some images are above.

2) Spine color:

A persistent problem comes up with Br & R's description giving peruvianus spines as "brown from the first"

This is sort of true but it is not at all true for some of the newest spines which can be very yellow (sometimes entirely yellow) at their base.

Macrogonus can share that swollen yellow spine base on newly forming spines but it is less smaller in diameter than on peruvianus and it generally is dark tipped.

Spine color is something incredibly variable over time. I've seen macrogonus spines start horn-colored, yellow, black and reddish on the same plant over time. Generally there is more than one color on a spine. This is something that is true for peruvianus in the vicinity of Matucana. A wide range of forms exists. At one point comments were being voiced that there was a form with all new spines which were yellowish and another that had all new spines reddish. More recently those were observed on a single plant.

Run through the images of the Huntington macrogonus above with that in mind. New spines are anything but consistent in color over time.

This is a major trouble with horticulture creating snapshots in the form of collections that are then described, propagated and viewed as if they are representative of a wild population rather than being simply a single clone taken from a larger and variable population. It is especially problematic in that, while we may assume the plant we see is representative, it is more likely that it was not chosen as an average representative of that population. The human tendency is to select the biggest and nicest or more beautifully colored specimen. Or one possessing some other aesthetically desirable trait. I am guessing that this occurred with the original wild collection of macrogonus as well.

One big problem is people want tight and consistently stable answers from a picture that it not stable and expresses a range of features that overlap between the described species. In many cases it is a matter of examining enough old growth before any real understanding starts to emerge.

3) Spine length

This is another feature that is insanely variable. Most often a macrogonus in nice conditions will form shorter spines than peruvianus on new growth but on older growth the spines are often longer on macrogonus.

4) Spine numbers on old areoles appears one of the more useful features but I'm not convinced that we can trust it without a lot of field work.

peruvianus: "about 10 spines"

macrogonus: "8-10 and 18-20 when older"

This of course does us little good on young plants. 6-9 radials and 1-3 centrals may be true but is also not very helpful if a person has no prior familiarity with macrogonus and peruvianus.

5) Spine base

Another persistent problem comes up with Br & R's description giving peruvianus spines as "not at all swollen at base".

This is sort of true but it is not at all true for some of the newest spines on peruvianus which can be very yellow and so swollen at their base as to appear conical when new and still forming AND the older spines do have a distinct bulblike swelling at their base despite it being commonly obscured by felt.

This latter feature can be very pronounced on cuzcoensis and multiple other species but in peruvianus it often remains obscured beneath the felt until the areoles get fairly old.

Macrogonus can also show swollen yellow spine bases on newly forming spines but it is less pronounced than on peruvianus and it generally is dark tipped.

An interesting and questionable element popped up in Backeberg 1959, that being that a discriminator was included of peruvianus not having swollen spine bases and those of macrogonus having a thickened base.

Trichocereus macrogonus

post-900-0-65875400-1440362026_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-48014000-1440362065_thumb.jpg

These also occur on peruvianus:

post-900-0-01000600-1440362110_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17477700-1440362155_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-79428000-1440362195_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-97087700-1440362236_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-20087400-1440362286_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-12600200-1440362323_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17506100-1440362357_thumb.jpg

6) Areole size and shape

This is another area a person might be tempted to assign smaller areoles to macrogonus. It is most often true. That said the ranges overlap so far it seems to not be a particularly useful features.

As for awl-like and needle-shaped spines. This too seems capriciously applied.

Backeberg slipped in a fast one when presenting this as being the separator in his key.

Peruvianus has the same sort of spines as macrogonus, they might remain obscured by felt for longer but a bit of looking can find almost identical spines on both macrogonus and peruvianus.

7) Areole spacing:

peruvianus areoles set 2-2.5 cm apart Br & R, 2.5 cm apart Backeberg

macrogonus areoles set 9-10 mm apart (Labouret) and 1-1.5 mm (Schumann & also Krainz) 2 cm (Riccobono; new spines yellow-brown), 1.5 cm (Schelle), 1.5-2 cm (Berger).

Areole spacing is also a variable feature but in general this feature actually approaches consistency. As a general statement peruvianus areoles are set farther apart than those on macrogonus. The range overlaps so a range of ages is valuable to examine.

There is also the observation that one can find exceptions in both directions if examining enough material. Field work is needed to establish whether this approaches being a consistent feature in wild plants.

For example, compare this Trichocereus macrogonus at the Huntington Botanical Gardens.
post-900-0-69988500-1440362521_thumb.jpg

with a wild Trichocereus peruvianus near Matucana.
post-900-0-80849200-1440362577_thumb.jpg

8) Felt/hair color and density

Depending on your definition of macrogonus a common difference from peruvianus involves the flower and ovary.

The usual felt and hair colors on the areoles of macrogonus are generally grey. If a person inspects enough new growth they can find a light brown, often coloring only part of the areole where a new central is emerging similar to what can sometimes also be found on peruvianus. In macrogonus the felt color, if present at all, tends to be light in color and fades very quickly. I suspect it is just a defect in hair production and its not significant in any larger way. It is something that needs some attention to determine the expression across the range.

Peruvianus exhibits several forms ranging from the ovary largely staying bare (such as is the case in plants collected from along the Rio Rimac in Peru) to being quite dark and wooly (such as is true for David Smith's herbarium specimen or on Trichocereus puquiensis). All do have hairs even though they can be sparse.

The only macrogonus flower I have seen with a clear side view had fewer, if any, dark brown or black hairs and sparse grey or white hair predominated leaving the ovary, fruit and floral tube largely exposed and almost naked looking from a distance. I do not however know if that applies to all macrogonus as I have seen so few of them flower and most flower images do not include the ovary or a view of the scaly receptacle.

This was an intriguing potential difference but I need to see a lot more flowers before being able to draw conclusions as that was the only flower I have encountered on the Huntington specimen. I stayed in the LA area for an extra two days waiting for that flower bud to open but it was not compliant. The visual "bareness" of the ovary and the scales of the receptacle is striking but an important awareness is that those axils do all bear at least some hairs.

This was that flower bud. More images are elsewhere here.

post-900-0-72858700-1440362811_thumb.jpg

Peruvianus also often has a fairly bare ovary (always with hairs growing from the axils of the scales)
Trichocereus rosei 1 (Field)

post-900-0-90284100-1440362914_thumb.jpg

Those on some other cacti considered to be peruvianus are more hairy.
Trichocereus rosei 2 (Field)

post-900-0-00719000-1440363014_thumb.jpg

However, the existence of unclearly defined plants such as the Trichocereus sp. SS01 leave me with some questions that underscore the immense need for field work to take this study any farther.

post-900-0-39824400-1440363179_thumb.jpg
The plant in Smith's "macrogonus" sheet at MOBOT is similarly darkly wooly.

9) Size

The claim for 6m tall macrogonus plants exists in Europe along with a note that they might be only 2m in cultivation. The Huntington specimen stays similarly short but forms longer arching branches.

Peruvianus branches tend to max out at around 15 ft (~5 m).

Peruvianus also tends to grow fatter than macrogonus but again the ranges overlap and on very old large specimens of either one the basal joints can get far larger in diameter than any branch on the plant.

One of Kakster's RS# at Sasha's in 2001.

post-900-0-79303400-1440364198_thumb.jpg


On the subject of recognizing hybrids.

This could conceivably become possible by using data from microsatellite primers. It depends first on whether someone actually performs the work to establish which primers are significant for each of the recognized species of interest and then on whether those primers are both reflected in the offspring. I suspect that it probably won't be able to identify all hybrids as being hybrids.

Clearly that is also an area ripe for the introduction of error as the output will be based on what is actually looked at. Too limited of a sample set or the use of inadequately identified samples can skew the results or at least limit their meaning.

I've also been struck by something concerning hybrids. It is tempting to think the range of observable intermediates are the result of hybrids but naturally occurring hybrids that manage to naturalize also tend to produce an observable phenomenon known as hybrid swarming and so far I have not seen much if any evidence for that in the localities in Peru where people are proposing that naturalized hybrids exist. In the vicinity of Matucana for instance a curiously wide range of peruvianus sorts exist and I suspect that if they are ever studied what will be found is they are all a single species that can be variable in appearance. What stimulates such a wide range of appearances is an interesting question.

I don't dismiss the potential influence of hybridization and have no problem believing it occurs, but it really can't account for most of what we are seeing. I would suggest that something simpler and far more interesting is ongoing as it also involves all sorts of Cactaceae and also other succulents such as Peperomia that aren't going to be directly affected by the moving around of a few Trichocereus and Opuntia species by humans.

-----------------------


Image section

A few of the offerings represented in horticulture labelled as or believed by their grower to be Trichocereus macrogonus

Allies

post-900-0-72339700-1440364490_thumb.jpg

This was the first macrogonus cutting that I was able to obtain following the death of my first one in an Austin ice storm more than a decade earlier. (Abbey Garden discontinued them around 1981.)

Field’s Cactus Nursery
A host of images can be seen at Bretloth's trichoserious.net webpage
I would love to know where this plant originally occurred. The collection expedition obtained material from both Peru and Bolivia.
The "cover" image at the very beginning also shows the Trichocereus macrogonus at Field’s ("sp. WK" is the fatter plants in the foreground)


Hobart Botanical Gardens
(Tasmania)

post-900-0-75514700-1440364296_thumb.jpg

This plant's image always causes me to recall words about Cereus hempelianus and wish I could observe a specimen.


Huntington Botanical Gardens
More images of their macrogonus can be found above.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_macrogonus_kt_1.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_macrogonus_kt_2.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_macrogonus_kt_3.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_macrogonus_kt_4.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_macrogonus_kt_5.jpg

William Hertrich was almost obsessed with building not just the garden but Huntington's collection; their plant collection was richly benefitted by his years of service.

post-900-0-71474000-1440364567_thumb.jpg

William Hertrich at work
1878 (Baden, Germany) -- 1966 (San Marino, California)

post-900-0-89244200-1440364604_thumb.jpg

Henry Edwards Huntington
February 27, 1850, Oneonta, New York–May 23, 1927, Philadelphia


Kew
“Echinopsis aff. macrogona”

post-900-0-18156900-1440364692_thumb.jpg

Image thanks to Michael Smith; photographer is not known to me. This is an intriguing image. I wish I could see an image of what they consider to be macrogonus rather than "aff." macrogonus.


“old German” stock
After first emailing a photo to Martin Terry, Gerhard Koehres provided a live cutting said to be of old stock as is now used primarily for grafting purposes.

post-900-0-08387900-1440364775_thumb.jpg

Image above was from Gerhard Koehres

Cutting obtained from Gerhard Koehres in 2008:

post-900-0-78604600-1440365098_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14547600-1440365259_thumb.jpg

I actually had my sanity called into question in public after I posted these images on-line as a macrogonus (and suggested that the spiny pachanoids being used as grafting stocks in assorted photos by Backeberg might actually be macrogonus). It actually was rather strange as all I was doing was honestly reporting something from someone who would seem might know their cacti. *Perhaps* it was just a practical joke as some have suggested but I would suggest that watching it grow up is likely to be a smarter choice than drawing any conclusions about it.

The same plant in 2009

post-900-0-65216000-1440364943_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-56312100-1440364974_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-75688800-1440365007_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-70238500-1440365048_thumb.jpg


Edgar Lamb & Brian Lamb
Cacti in Colour.
It would be interesting to know if this reflects older European material or was grown from Knize's seeds.

post-900-0-51457600-1440365313_thumb.jpg

Now for several plants I have some questions about.

macrogonus giganteus at NMCR

From seeds said to have been obtained from Field’s Cactus Nursery ~ 1980. Robert Field has no memory of this name or the seeds.
It looks similar to material grown from seed that Karel Knize sold as Trichocereus giganteus and as Trichocereus peruvianus var. giganteus.
Horst and the Field’s (Robert & his father) traded seeds for many years but this does not appear to be at Field's Nursery so I suspect Horst misspoke.

http://troutsnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Trichocereus-macrogonus-giganteus-Field-NMCR-g.jpg
http://troutsnotes.com/nmcr-2010-macrogonus-pachanoi/trichocereus-macrogonus-giganteus-field-nmcr-d/#main
http://troutsnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Trichocereus-macrogonus-giganteus-Field-NMCR-h.jpg

Michael Smith posted an image some years ago of a macrogonus he obtained from NMCR

post-900-0-64182600-1440365367_thumb.jpg


This type of plant can also be found under the same name macrogonus:

post-900-0-86557400-1440365562_thumb.jpg

This is among the more common problematic views of macrogonus. For some reason these pachanoid peruvianus sorts have grown to merit this name in some people's worldview. I am still curious to see a bona fide macrogonus sensu Harry Johnson.


A perplexing name reassignment occurred at some point in recent years.

A once unclear "Trichocereus sp." (Peru-65_0715) at UC had its metal name plate changed to read "Echinopsis macrogona" and was assigned a *different accession number* and an origin of "South America".

post-900-0-52710900-1440365869_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69167600-1440365929_thumb.jpg

It seems a bit strange that this would occur somewhere close to fifty years after it appeared in their garden.

And finally,

the single worst macrogonus offering that I have found in horticulture.

Here is also the seriously confused Trichocereus macrogonus that was sold by Bob Gillette.

Trichocereus-macrogonus-Gillette-1
Trichocereus-macrogonus-Gillette-2

A large number of additional images can be found on this website and other websites. It was my intention to create a nice list of links but there are so many that I'm just going to suggest doing a keyword search on this website and on Google images.

Trichocereus peruvianus
I'm including some images of peruvianus for comparison since I've been mentioning both species.

peruvianus (GF)

post-900-0-20404400-1440366388_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-56346100-1440366428_thumb.jpg

Plants in the garden

(GF)

post-900-0-14423300-1440366469_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-74505200-1440366554_thumb.jpg

(Same but different tip)
post-900-0-66986500-1440366618_thumb.jpg

(And another peruvianus from GF's collection; this one develops strongly prostrate tendencies)
post-900-0-23097700-1440367419_thumb.jpg

(A field collected cutting obtained from HdP in Lima)
post-900-0-95670500-1440366723_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-93940500-1440366772_thumb.jpg


(Another field collected cutting obtained from HdP in Lima)
post-900-0-94391500-1440366938_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-66985800-1440366991_thumb.jpg


(Another field collected cutting obtained from HdP in Lima)
post-900-0-50330100-1440367063_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37824400-1440367122_thumb.jpg

(Another field collected cutting obtained from HdP in Lima)
post-900-0-97327000-1440367264_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-77438500-1440367315_thumb.jpg

(Another field collected one from HdP)

post-900-0-32559900-1440367519_thumb.jpg

(And another)
post-900-0-37495200-1440367642_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-19850900-1440367690_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-97980500-1440367731_thumb.jpg

Trichocereus rosei 1 (Field)
post-900-0-83953900-1440367808_thumb.jpg


Trichocereus peruvianus near Matucana

post-900-0-07757600-1440367851_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-54270000-1440367897_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-44442600-1440368055_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-11010400-1440368124_thumb.jpg
post-900-0-00405200-1440367960_thumb.jpg


There are a few additional links at this website.

Two forms of peruvianus growing at UC
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_peruvianus_Peru_twoforms_kt.jpg

more photos of these two are below

peruvianus Peru 48.1540
This was started by them from seed in 1948 but the seed lacked collection data
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_peruvianus_Peru_48_1540_kt_1.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_peruvianus_Peru_48_1540_kt_2.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_peruvianus_Peru_48_1540_kt_3.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_peruvianus_Peru_48_1540_Tania_4.jpg
Last photo was by my friend Tania


peruvianus Hutchison 543 (Peru 52.0762)
This was collected around 70 miles from Lima in 1952 by Paul C. Hutchison
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_peruvianus_Hutchison_543_1_Peru_52_0762_kt_1.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_peruvianus_Hutchison_543_1_Peru_52_0762_kt_3.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_peruvianus_Hutchison_543_1_Peru_52_0762_kt_5.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_peruvianus_Hutchison_543_1_Peru_52_0762_kt_6.jpg
Last photo above is of a young plant tip obtained from them as a seedling in their plant store

post-900-0-60760400-1440366134.jpg

Paul C. Hutchison (shown with May Blos and Myron Kimnach)

peruvianus KK242
This version was grown from a cutting obtained some years ago from Karel Knize.
Photo was by someone who gave me permission to use it but did not want their name attached to it.
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_peruvianus_KK242_Anon.jpg


tarmaensis
Collected near Tarma, Peru.
I'm including this due to Smith's specimen at MOBOT occurring not far from it.
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_tarmaensis_kt_1.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_tarmaensis_kt_2.jpg
http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_tarmaensis_kt_3.jpg
All three of these images are from a single large plant. The smaller plant was obtained as a rooted cutting sold in their plant sale.

post-900-0-48177600-1440284798_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-04548900-1440284854_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-85591600-1440284941_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-07036000-1440285029_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-38870900-1440285086_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-95923100-1440285149_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-96870800-1440286360_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47923200-1440286418_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-32276300-1440286487_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-98293400-1440288696_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-68184000-1440288766_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-82643000-1440288804_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-23826600-1440288886_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14934600-1440288919_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-49815600-1440288980_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39923800-1440289020_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-82357000-1440289097_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-03310000-1440289171_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39000800-1440289226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-53457300-1440289292_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-88157500-1440289781_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-43729900-1440289861_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-12252000-1440289923_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-52322000-1440289992_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-72091900-1440290105_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-82019300-1440290231_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-91710900-1440290266_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17682200-1440290393_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39141300-1440290498_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-99221400-1440290563_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16150800-1440290617_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-97816100-1440290882_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44242000-1440290922_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-83891200-1440290982_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-43655800-1440291012_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-28347700-1440291043_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-84681900-1440291078_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-32310400-1440291103_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-59810600-1440291133_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-50711300-1440291177_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-24811900-1440291206_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-68756000-1440291246_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-51800800-1440291281_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-54852400-1440291311_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69625100-1440291347_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-91118100-1440291392_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-70046400-1440291422_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-67682300-1440291460_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-85262300-1440291491_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-88563600-1440291638_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-75355100-1440291706_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-04709800-1440291762_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-92136200-1440291802_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14880500-1440291864_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16344500-1440292055_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-81927500-1440292092_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-92195300-1440292143_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-88012000-1440292200_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-48536100-1440292279_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-58576000-1440292333_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-74368900-1440292379_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-36385200-1440292436_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-96441900-1440359679_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-10207800-1440359726_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-25608700-1440359777_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-41118000-1440359835_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-01837300-1440359883_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-22974900-1440359925_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-22784000-1440359961_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-34884100-1440360012_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-23670700-1440360052_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-86155700-1440360097_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47261800-1440360142_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-71924700-1440360191_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-98823300-1440360226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-07120600-1440360267_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-41443700-1440360310_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-57378400-1440360358_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-48954200-1440360424_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-10209000-1440360666_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-45262000-1440360710_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-59278800-1440360770_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-33664100-1440360813_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66325000-1440360847_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-36993100-1440360885_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-64833300-1440360926_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-78788700-1440360957_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-88092400-1440360988_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-25116500-1440361030_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-12501000-1440361095_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-00007600-1440361214_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44866500-1440361264_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-00663300-1440361304_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-76952700-1440361345_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-73889000-1440361389_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44620600-1440361441_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-65875400-1440362026_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-48014000-1440362065_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-01000600-1440362110_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17477700-1440362155_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-79428000-1440362195_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-97087700-1440362236_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-20087400-1440362286_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-12600200-1440362323_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17506100-1440362357_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69988500-1440362521_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-80849200-1440362577_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-72858700-1440362811_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-90284100-1440362914_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-00719000-1440363014_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39824400-1440363179_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-79303400-1440364198_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-75514700-1440364296_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-72339700-1440364490_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-71474000-1440364567_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-89244200-1440364604_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-18156900-1440364692_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-08387900-1440364775_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-65216000-1440364943_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-56312100-1440364974_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-75688800-1440365007_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-70238500-1440365048_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-78604600-1440365098_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14547600-1440365259_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-51457600-1440365313_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-64182600-1440365367_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-86557400-1440365562_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-52710900-1440365869_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69167600-1440365929_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-60760400-1440366134.jpg

post-900-0-20404400-1440366388_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-56346100-1440366428_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14423300-1440366469_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-74505200-1440366554_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66986500-1440366618_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-95670500-1440366723_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-93940500-1440366772_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-94391500-1440366938_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66985800-1440366991_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-50330100-1440367063_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37824400-1440367122_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-97327000-1440367264_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-77438500-1440367315_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-23097700-1440367419_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-32559900-1440367519_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37495200-1440367642_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-19850900-1440367690_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-97980500-1440367731_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-83953900-1440367808_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-07757600-1440367851_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-54270000-1440367897_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-00405200-1440367960_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44442600-1440368055_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-11010400-1440368124_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-48177600-1440284798_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-04548900-1440284854_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-85591600-1440284941_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-07036000-1440285029_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-38870900-1440285086_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-95923100-1440285149_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-96870800-1440286360_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47923200-1440286418_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-32276300-1440286487_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-98293400-1440288696_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-68184000-1440288766_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-82643000-1440288804_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-23826600-1440288886_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14934600-1440288919_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-49815600-1440288980_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39923800-1440289020_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-82357000-1440289097_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-03310000-1440289171_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39000800-1440289226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-53457300-1440289292_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-88157500-1440289781_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-43729900-1440289861_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-12252000-1440289923_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-52322000-1440289992_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-72091900-1440290105_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-82019300-1440290231_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-91710900-1440290266_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17682200-1440290393_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39141300-1440290498_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-99221400-1440290563_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16150800-1440290617_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-97816100-1440290882_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44242000-1440290922_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-83891200-1440290982_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-43655800-1440291012_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-28347700-1440291043_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-84681900-1440291078_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-32310400-1440291103_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-59810600-1440291133_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-50711300-1440291177_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-24811900-1440291206_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-68756000-1440291246_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-51800800-1440291281_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-54852400-1440291311_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69625100-1440291347_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-91118100-1440291392_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-70046400-1440291422_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-67682300-1440291460_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-85262300-1440291491_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-88563600-1440291638_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-75355100-1440291706_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-04709800-1440291762_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-92136200-1440291802_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14880500-1440291864_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-16344500-1440292055_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-81927500-1440292092_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-92195300-1440292143_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-88012000-1440292200_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-48536100-1440292279_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-58576000-1440292333_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-74368900-1440292379_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-36385200-1440292436_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-96441900-1440359679_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-10207800-1440359726_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-25608700-1440359777_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-41118000-1440359835_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-01837300-1440359883_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-22974900-1440359925_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-22784000-1440359961_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-34884100-1440360012_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-23670700-1440360052_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-86155700-1440360097_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-47261800-1440360142_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-71924700-1440360191_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-98823300-1440360226_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-07120600-1440360267_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-41443700-1440360310_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-57378400-1440360358_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-48954200-1440360424_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-10209000-1440360666_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-45262000-1440360710_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-59278800-1440360770_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-33664100-1440360813_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66325000-1440360847_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-36993100-1440360885_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-64833300-1440360926_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-78788700-1440360957_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-88092400-1440360988_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-25116500-1440361030_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-12501000-1440361095_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-00007600-1440361214_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44866500-1440361264_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-00663300-1440361304_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-76952700-1440361345_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-73889000-1440361389_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44620600-1440361441_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-65875400-1440362026_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-48014000-1440362065_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-01000600-1440362110_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17477700-1440362155_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-79428000-1440362195_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-97087700-1440362236_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-20087400-1440362286_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-12600200-1440362323_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-17506100-1440362357_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69988500-1440362521_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-80849200-1440362577_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-72858700-1440362811_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-90284100-1440362914_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-00719000-1440363014_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-39824400-1440363179_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-79303400-1440364198_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-75514700-1440364296_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-72339700-1440364490_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-71474000-1440364567_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-89244200-1440364604_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-18156900-1440364692_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-08387900-1440364775_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-65216000-1440364943_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-56312100-1440364974_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-75688800-1440365007_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-70238500-1440365048_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-78604600-1440365098_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14547600-1440365259_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-51457600-1440365313_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-64182600-1440365367_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-86557400-1440365562_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-52710900-1440365869_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-69167600-1440365929_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-60760400-1440366134.jpg

post-900-0-20404400-1440366388_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-56346100-1440366428_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-14423300-1440366469_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-74505200-1440366554_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66986500-1440366618_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-95670500-1440366723_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-93940500-1440366772_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-94391500-1440366938_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-66985800-1440366991_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-50330100-1440367063_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37824400-1440367122_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-97327000-1440367264_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-77438500-1440367315_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-23097700-1440367419_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-32559900-1440367519_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-37495200-1440367642_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-19850900-1440367690_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-97980500-1440367731_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-83953900-1440367808_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-07757600-1440367851_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-54270000-1440367897_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-00405200-1440367960_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-44442600-1440368055_thumb.jpg

post-900-0-11010400-1440368124_thumb.jpg

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks for sharing this trucha

I haven't finished it yet, but it's very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks, I hadn't finished it either.

It is essentially done as of moments ago but I still need to scan through it for any dangling edit needs. I also need to go eat something before doing that.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks for your work KT, I always enjoy reading your thoughts and research.

Apologies if this does not belong here or has already been mentioned in the posts above, (I have only read up to 1935 and your long "wrap up" post at the end so far but I'm working my way through it!), but Sacred Succulents have just sent an email out with this interesting snippet inside.

Trichocereus macrogonus ‘True?’
Upright bluish green stems. Spines to 1"+. White flowers. The wild origin of the species is unknown. From European stock, this is believed to be the original true T. macrogonus clone from which the species was described. Distinct from T. peruvianus which some have recently renamed as T. macrogonus as the ever inspiring charade of taxonomical buffoonery around the genus Trichocereus continues. 5–6" cutting $20

Any chance anyone has pics of SS's plant they are speaking of to compare to the German plant the description was made on? They say it is distinct from T Peruvianus also but don't mention why it's different.

From what I've gleaned so far it seems that it's really only the shorter distance between areoles that can be used to identify a plant is a macrogonus rather than peruvianus as all the other features mentioned seem to be so dependent on the growing conditions and the time the plant is observed/recorded that I don't see how they can be relied upon to make a distinction. :scratchhead:

7) Areole spacing:
peruvianus areoles set 2-2.5 cm apart Br & R, 2.5 cm apart Backeberg
macrogonus areoles set 9-10 mm apart (Labouret) and 1-1.5 mm (Schumann & also Krainz) 2 cm Riccobono (new spines yellow-brown), 1. cm (Schelle) , 1.5-2 cm Berger

Even then some of those distances mentioned by Riccobono and Berger could well fall into peruvianus territory......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Anything comments related to macrogonus is a good addition.

One thing is certain, which is that macrogonus should completely subset within peruvianus. It is recognizable but nothing about it merits being a separate species. I suspect with enough field work a person could likely find every described feature to overlap although I've never seen a peruvianus with only sparse grey hairs on the floral tube, ovary and fruit. I've also not seen enough macrogonus flowering to know if that is as consistent as the older descriptions suggest.

Areole spacing overlaps in the center but it is also a feature the is useful to know. Not based on measurements but the macrogonus sorts in horticulture tend to be substantially more densely spiny due to the closer areole spacing.

The only feature that, so far, is staying consistent through much observation is that older areoles on macrogonus form more spines per areole. I've found one single peruvianus areole that challenges that but was 4 spines short of the most spines that I've located on a macrogonus areole (18).

Time alone will tell on that one.

I'll be curious to see a DNA comparison of peruvianus and macrogonus assuming it comes with enough data to know what they looked at. Also I look forward to the day someone published a triterpenoid analysis of peruvianus. T. pachanoi and T. macrogonus both have had results published.

SS obtained that macrogonus from me so it is the very same thing that Koehres sent to Dr. Terry.
I live in a location with really terrible conditions for growing cacti (a densely shady secondary-growth redwood forest) so anything that I want to see grow up nicely first goes into the hands of growers who I know are better situated. I still have a number of questions about that particular plant that only time and some patience can answer.

The plants I'm most interested in seeing are apparently going to require a trip to Spain and Monaco.

The majority of "The Macrogonus Onus" was assembled and written around four years ago. It took this long to obtain some dangling bits of literature and complete it as far as I could.

To take it any farther will require field work and the molecular analysis of appropriately chosen specimens for macrogonus, peruvianus and pachanoi so I decided to put it online even if it is still three steps shy of being complete.

I have no idea if this is actually their macrogonus or something else but this was shot at Caralt's garden in Spain

http://www.lapshin.org/cultivar/N38/Pina/pic_20.jpg

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

wow, thanks for sharing.. marking this to read later, as as not to forget... again, thanks for sharing new research

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

No problem.

I hope you enjoy it. Feedback is encouraged.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Very nice, thanks. Did you see SS new listings? There is a "True" Macro now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Sure, although "true" is often a relative term when discussing species.

That is the same plant that Koehres gave to Dr. Terry and is pictured here.

SS is in a much better situation for propagation and distribution than I am so they were the logical recipient.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Just a note to say that this material has been updated for the Blossfeld 1935 entry and for the period of 2012-2015.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×