Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
Psyentist

Cordobensis? Super Pedro, Lance, pach 'Rob'

Recommended Posts

Just posted these pics in a thread on the wanted forum but thought I'd put them here for future reference.

 

Seems there's confusion surrounding the whole cordobensis thing. Specifically with Super Pedro and Lance. I'm certainly no expert but they seem a little different in my garden. The other plant I lump in with these two is pachanoi 'Rob'. It leans more toward Lance though and I actually can't tell them apart by looking at them. I think Super Pedro differs in the fact that the spines are a little longer and the areoles stick out a bit further.

Here are my clones of these three plants. All three acquired from the sab nursery and growing next to each other for 2 or 3 years.

 

Super Pedro...

IMG_6424.JPGIMG_6427.JPG

 

Lance...

IMG_6425.JPGIMG_6428.JPG

 

pachanoi 'Rob'...

IMG_6430.JPGIMG_6431.JPG

 

If anyone has any pics to compare or opinions I'd love to see/hear them.

 

Cheers! :) 

IMG_6424.thumb.JPG.51cb4b562eb4aa1dd43e79b943240e54.JPG

IMG_6427.thumb.JPG.a3a870754e88aaf95748265f6aad59cb.JPG

IMG_6425.thumb.JPG.bbb5f0745e9e11a08f9c40b13302e483.JPG

IMG_6428.thumb.JPG.69d051d7663920184238298f8ab8e744.JPG

IMG_6430.thumb.JPG.7a90041965e90cf3a9dff5ff9460be81.JPG

IMG_6431.thumb.JPG.ade0febb9f0dce6ce8fbdc2ce2094e01.JPG

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice thread. None of these are T. pachanoi. The top view pretty much seals it that all are Scops. That rib structure doesn´t happen with Trichocereus pachanoi, at least not in this way. You can also see the bloated ribs, which shows all three are Bolivian Scop relatives. I wouldnt even say that the spine length is different enough to reliably tell them apart. There´s huge variation in spine length and it´s usually one of the worst traits to differentiate between certain strains. So yeah, interesting. I know about Lance being a Scop, but it´s new to me that Rob is a Scop too. I will look into older photos to see if it´s a simple mislabeling or if Rob is a Scop too, but some of these "clones" could be duplicates. How would you know? The only way to reliably test it is by trying to cross them and see if they can produce seeds or not. 

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd agree they're all scop types. I keep them labeled as what I got them as for traceability. It wouldn't surprise me if lance and rob are the same plant, maybe rob was a mislabel but I seem to recall other rob plants that look similar.

I know spine length isn't reliable for id's, it's just the only other noticeable difference I can see on my lance and super ped. The main thing that makes me think they're different is the side/profile view of the ribs. It is quite straight up and down on lance but with super ped the areoles kind of stick out of the rib a bit like you see on bridgesii sometimes. That's the observations I can make on my plants anyway. 

Just had thought, maybe super ped is possibly a scop/bridgesii hybrid, possibly maybe? :) 

Anyway, anyone else growing both? Quite interested to see what other people think?

Edited by Psyentist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The top view pretty much seals it that all are Scops. That rib structure doesn´t happen with Trichocereus pachanoi, at least not in this way. You can also see the bloated ribs, which shows all three are Bolivian Scop relatives.

 

What's your call on cordobensis EG. It's possibly a defunct name now, but Torsten mentioned some old publications that refer to it.

 

Cordoba province in nth Argentina is not too far from Scop territory in Bolivia.

 

Fair to say cordobensis are just spiney scops?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both S.P and Rob, and agree they look very scop-y, i'll take a photo in the morning so you can see what they look like in my growing conditions... I was under the impression that S.P was a pach scop hybrid, but i don't remember if that was my opinion or if i read it somewhere... I've got a scop x bridge too, but obviously its girth isn't particularly 'super'... I would have thought that the thickness of S.P would discount it from being a bridge cross...?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have grown ozzie  clones "lance" and "rob" for several years. They are correctly referred to as scopulicolas or scopXpach's by most people. Some people have stated that rob  and lance are different, but I really cant tell the difference. If I had to tell one difference, is it might be that rob pupped more at the base for me, but that might just be occasional, or not and indeed they are different.. I dont know, I couldnt tell for sure.... maybe rob is lance's progeny.. they look identical, that's for sure... especially if one doesn't know... 

 

It wouldn't matter, whatever strain of the two one can get, this is a vigorous, fat, beautiful strain, with some glaucus tendencies, well worth of growing, along with the spineless variety of scopulicola. 

 

So, I agree they are scops or in any case more scopoid than pachanoi, in many senses in the phenotypical way, despite the spines. 

 

Now, the "super pedro", that would be an american clone, I havent grown this, so I wouldnt know... I have read extensive reports that its identical or very similar to lance/cordobensis

 

PS: oh, for what its worth I got my lance from sab, as lance = t.cordobensis  as well as rob. 

 

Edited by sagiXsagi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of super pedro being an American clone. The one we have here in Australia originates from cactus country in Victoria, same place as psycho0 and the J plants. 

For me lance and rob both pup pretty readily from the base when the main column is relatively small, which is unusual for scops I'm led to believe. I totally agree though, both beautiful plants! :) 

And I believe it would be possible for a scop x bridgesii to be as fat as a super ped. If scop was the mother and certain offspring lent heavily towards the mothers genes. The only reason I say it is that the areoles stick out a bit and I haven't really seen that on pachs. Only bridgies. Like this...

IMG_6455.JPG

And here's super ped...

IMG_6456.JPG

Its only my observation and guess though, I'm most likely wrong.

Both Bolivian but. :) 

IMG_6455.thumb.JPG.87d4631243722dcbcc50a9645d9df583.JPG

IMG_6456.thumb.JPG.bde0b75780bc2bda81dcaa1ac75aee93.JPG

Edited by Psyentist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAB has a SCOP x tig which I reckon looks like super Pedro a bit in my spot, but saw a piccy of toasts recently and it seems to get a nice long spine wonce fattened up... I think its just the SCOP dominance... (The Sab SCOP x tig is probably many plants though, not a single clone.)

 

I would say that super Pedro is a typical SCOP x pachanoi, probably a vigorous seedling from a SCOP x pach fruit- I reckon there will be a lot of plants to look like this come through as thousands of people growing out SCOP x pachanoi seed. Some seed growns I have going have the s.p. vibe for sure

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had my eye out for a cordobensis clone for some time.  Thanks for this thread.  I will add Rob to my search terms and maybe luck into a clone sooner or later.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're likely right on the scop x pach thing DB. Probability is certainly on your side. Just throwing some wild conspiracy theories out there. :) Guess we can never know for sure though, seems the consensus is that super ped is some kind of scop hybrid. Could even be straight scop as well though I suppose. 

Damn it, someone get some bloody DNA testing done on these things! All this speculation is killing me! :) 

Also Trevyn, shame you're in USA. Plenty of these plants over here. Good luck with the hunt. :) 

Edited by Psyentist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i cant speak for cordobensis or rob or lance, but i know a guy who suggested that super ped was a rosei 1 cross of some kind. This person has a world of super ped and has done for many years so this suggestion has come from a long time of observing the plants, also in this persons garden rosei1 gets as fat as super ped.

 

we know it comes from cactus country so with that we should be able to narrow the list slightly, is there any scop out at cactus country? ive never been there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Also Trevyn, shame you're in USA. Plenty of these plants over here. Good luck with the hunt. :) 

 

Yeah I hear it falls from the sky like rain in Oz.  

 

Mu sent me a sweet cut of Psycho0 so I keep my eye on the plant trading sub-forum.  Sooner or later somebody will hook a cat up.  If you stay in the barber shop long enough, you eventually get your hair cut, yeah?

 

Somebody just pinged me so I may be in luck already.  This place is the best.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top view pretty much seals it that all are Scops. That rib structure doesn´t happen with Trichocereus pachanoi, at least not in this way. You can also see the bloated ribs, which shows all three are Bolivian Scop relatives. 

 

What am I looking for here E.G.?  From the top down view I mean.  

 

Take this cut for example.  Was sold as T. Santaensis but it looks a little Scoppy and a little pachy to me.  Or is it just a five ribbed pachanoi?

 

s-l1600.jpg

 

s-l1600.jpg

 

 

 

 

Edited by Trevyn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

What am I looking for here E.G.?  From the top down view I mean.  

 

Take this cut for example.  Was sold as T. Santaensis but it looks a little Scoppy and a little pachy to me.  Or is it just a five ribbed pachanoi?

 

s-l1600.jpg

 

s-l1600.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Trevyn, it´s a little too early to tell. You should put the plant in a good soil and let it grow for a while. It could be a Scop, but Trichocereus santaensis definitely looks like this at a younger age too. They have a similar rib count as Trichocereus scopulicola. Where is it from? Only few sellers offer this species and most that do actually have the correct one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

i cant speak for cordobensis or rob or lance, but i know a guy who suggested that super ped was a rosei 1 cross of some kind. This person has a world of super ped and has done for many years so this suggestion has come from a long time of observing the plants, also in this persons garden rosei1 gets as fat as super ped.

 

we know it comes from cactus country so with that we should be able to narrow the list slightly, is there any scop out at cactus country? ive never been there.

 

The flower morphology on the Super Pedro makes it clear that it is a Scop. There is a very fat type of Scop that was described as Trichocereus crassicostatus by the original describer Friedrich Ritter. I´ve seen this plant and it is absolutely identical to the Super Pedro. Back when the idea about the Super Pedro being a hybrid came up, nobody knew about that old description of this very spiny and fat version of Trichocereus scopulicola. The Trichocereus peruvianus "Rosei 1" is a Peruvian plant with the flower of a Trichocereus peruvianus. Its flower morphology is nothing like the one on the Super Pedro. Hybrid breeding usually works out differently than most people think...in almost all the cases the F1 looks exactly like the mother plant, which would mean that there is a very high chance that a hybrid between Trichocereus scopulicola and the Rosei 1 clone (as father) would just look like any other Scop instead of a 50/50 mix between the two. If we were talking about a hybrid with Trichocereus scopulicola as a father, the flower morphology would look differently because the mothers are usually dominant in regards to the flower morphology.

Like mentioned before, I am certain that the Super Pedro is a regional form of Trichocereus scopulicola, but even we´d treat it as a hybrid it would be really rare that you could just guess the father by just observing it because the fathers are often not visible in the F1. Most hybrids are extremely similar to the mother plant and if you would have to guess the parents of four or five Scop crosses, it would be extremely rare that you could guess the parents. On top of that, Trichocereus scopulicola is a Bolivian species, while the Rosei 1 Peruvianus is a Peruvian one. In the wild, they could not produce hybrids and due to the wide distribution of the Super Pedro, I really doubt it being a hybrid that originated from one grower. Most old plantings of the Super Pedro go back many decades, and that was before the time when hybrid cultivation became more common. Friedrich Ritter sold seeds of his Scop sister species Trichocereus crassicostatus for many years and Ritter is by far the most probable source. He was the one who discovered the Scop and almost all Scops on the market go back to him. That includes weird forms of Trichocereus scopulicola as well. These days, there are new hybrids by great growers like Misplant, Master B. Trichocereus.com.au, but back then the situation was different. There are crosses where you get weird plants as the result, but almost all Scop crosses I ever saw just looked like Scops. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to argue @Evil Genius but i've read you say this a few times with F1's looking identical to mother...  Would you mind explaining a bit more because I have seen otherwise in my experience, not that I am very well travelled on the topic, but the scops i've seen crossed with bridgesii tend to take on some pollen donor characteristics, below is a photo zed240 posted of his SCOP x TIG (bridgesii) sourced from SAB, spines are looking amazing and i'd expect them to get bigger

 

 

14570217_1159043474141544_23235923874165

 

 

and here is a graft i did of seed from incognito, LANCE x FUNKOID 

 

13882356_168530960233537_392323185830040

13680524_168530970233536_203835922972532

 

I think there are many more examples, i.e. these are not isolated cases...  what do you think????

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These were all traded from members on this forum 

 

Super pedros 

 

super%20pedro.png

 

Lance 

 

Lance.png

 

Scop X Tig

 

scop%20X%20Tig.png

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'm not trying to argue @Evil Genius but i've read you say this a few times with F1's looking identical to mother...  Would you mind explaining a bit more because I have seen otherwise in my experience, not that I am very well travelled on the topic, but the scops i've seen crossed with bridgesii tend to take on some pollen donor characteristics, below is a photo zed240 posted of his SCOP x TIG (bridgesii) sourced from SAB, spines are looking amazing and i'd expect them to get bigger

 

 

14570217_1159043474141544_23235923874165

 

 

and here is a graft i did of seed from incognito, LANCE x FUNKOID 

 

13882356_168530960233537_392323185830040

13680524_168530970233536_203835922972532

 

I think there are many more examples, i.e. these are not isolated cases...  what do you think????


 It´s been publicized by numerous high profile breeders, eg Robert Gräser who published articles on hybrids during his lifetime. Germany has a very prolific hybrid breeding scene and most of my colleagues make 300-500 crosses a year and also raise them in order to get perfect flowers. A high number of crosses is needed, because there is a high percentage of discard. These are either hybrids which are pretty much identical to the mother (which is why they are discarded, especially when the breeder wants to get a great flower that is different from the flower of the parents) or which are just too similar to the botanic form to keep on breeding with them. I already mentioned that there are exceptions, so I am not surprised to see a Scop with longer spines and what is not shown are all the normal ones, the hundreds of hybrids that are commonly identified as "pure Scop" because it´s not possible to recognize them as the hybrids they are. I love to see new hybrids and I am glad for every good hybrid I see, even if they are somewhat normal. It´s just normal that for every unique plant you will have to raise twenty times as many totally standard ones. That´s okay because hybrids are awesome, but it´s just everyday life for a hybrid breeder. And it´s not only that, but you can also expect the same variability when growing botanically pure Trichocereus specimens from seeds. It´s totally normal that you have a wide variety of traits within the seedlings grown from the same batch of seeds. In reality, this is nothing else than evolution in full effect, but it has less to do with hybrid cultivation than it has with the natural variability of cacti in general. So yeah, sure there are remarkable plants, but there also are thousands of totally normal plants. I have archives that are filled with photos where you would never think that you are looking at a hybrid. There will always be remarkable plants and dominant fathers among them, but it takes a lot of selection to get to that point.
Like mentioned before, there is something that is called natural variability, which can be misinterpreted as being the result of a hybrid pollination too. Raise 100 seedlings from one fruit, and you will end up with all kinds of different spine lengths, colors, sizes, etc. Regardless if you grow pure or hybrid seeds. Exceptions confirm the rules and it sometimes takes generations of breeding to get a great hybrid. Some other times, you get lucky and have tons of interesting hybrids just from one fruit. You never know which one it is, but the odds definitely follow certain patterns. When dealing with stuff like DNA and genetics, many things can influence the outcome of a cross, but in regards to the phenotype the mothers are usually more dominant.

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothings is pure - everything is a hybrid , humans too. The concept of pureness, either for religion, spirituality, philosophy , ideologies, ideas, trichocerei or humans is more or less pointless, with little real use, for different reasons each. 

 

I like the use of  the concept of "good" species more, rather than "pure". 

 

I always wondered about what you said EG, about how mother is known to give most characteristic to offspring, especially in plants.. Maybe that's why selective breeding .f.e. in peppers works so fast and simple and easy. 

 

While we are at hybrids, I have a couple of seedlings sent to me by subtlereaction, I think they're made from an ozzie, but not sure who.. crosses are

 

scop x scop

scop x bridgesii 

psycho x yowie

juul's x validus

validus x huazarensis

 

are those master B's crosses? they all look awesome 

 

--- 

 

to make the devils advocate, according to what you say EG, one would assume that it would take some 4-5 generations to get to f4. f5 offspring, so maybe 25-30 years, to make a good distinct hybrid, but I supposed that growing lots of f1's might give some good results - 1 in 20 , as you say is not a small percentage for a distinct pheno. 

 

So maybe, the truth might be in the middle

 

OR, variations within the whole genus and some species in particular might be because they are already natural hybrids :) just saying

 

PS: doubleben>>> no way that spiny thing is a lance hybrid from the way of the mother :P

 

Edited by sagiXsagi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like you probably have zelly/misplant hybrids @sagiXsagi - as for your PS... I have thought maybe the birdgesii is mother, however who am I to question the growers label..? There can be crazy things happen with hybrids i think, check out this fields pachanoi x pasacana (interbeing seed) that berengar grew.... would you call this pachanoi???

IMG_6361.jpg

 

or this one... nrivers grew this interbeing hybrid super pedro x huacsha... looks fucking sick!!!

P1140944.JPG  

 

 

Thanks for your reply @Evil Genius, I appreciate the time! I have a lot more questions though.... ;-) Are all your colleagues growing t. scop/cordo hybrids etc or are you talking about Echinopsis hybrids??

I dont disagree with your comments about hybridising, but surely every genus in Cactaceae isnt the same case??? For eg in my eyes a heap of seed raised spachianus would look identical to me, but my eyes see alot of variation in bridgesii. Maybe very stable phenotypes exist where similar types cross pollinate, but when different species are mixed surely all sorts of dominant and recessive alleles combinations could give interesting results (and also clues about heredity?? like red haired maori people???).. I just think that these examples arent as small a percentage as you suggest.. I am certainly unsure about the photos that arent  mine, but in my experience- i select a random seedling to graft, one that looks identical to the others, I cannot tell if the graft is unique or not untl the others grow up, but selecting at random and seeing variation makes me think less chance of it being a small percentage....  I am not talking flower morpholpogy here either I guess....  I just think that every case is unique and produces different results and with growers like zelly, interbeing, masterB  producing hundreds and hundreds of fruits, we  are starting to (and will continue) see some very interesting, strange and unexpected plants.... and I guess "in almost all the cases the F1 looks exactly like the mother plant" might be not be true in all cases-

I do realise I am not experienced enough to weigh in on this discussion legitimately, I am just very interested in the topic and am trying to understand as much as I can.... it is very exciting and i like to hear myself talk :-)

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey my PS was half serious half sarcastic, and it helped that its an incognito cross as he would never take offence ;) 

 

beautiful strains btw !

 

about the hybrids I mentioned, I had asked again , I got an answer but I hadnt listed them all. maybe they are a mixed bunch from different growers.

 

I am willing to see how crosses with fatties will turn out, that is  pachanoi family X fatties family and the reverse. 

 

I also wonder if an good "intermediate" hybrid would have mixed traits in its flower , like often mentioned for the PC. Are there other examples of flowers that do not suit one or the other species of a said clone or grown to maturity hybrid? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made and sent out lots of Psycho0 X Yowie and Yowie X Psycho0 seeds last year. I sent some to Mysubtleascension so those ones could have been from mine. 

 

Hybrids I've seen with scop as mother and a spinier plant as father really, really often have more/longer spines that the mother scop. I have a number of different scop X bridgesii plants and some scop X peru too. Some other scop crosses too, but they're a bit young to see proper traits. 

 

That Scop X Tig of mine that DB put up is in full sun and has some ~2inch long spines now as that pic is a couple of months old. It's pretty fat and has a scop-like body shape though. 

 

I do have a couple of Roseii 1 X scop plants that look heaps like a cordobensis too. They're only 1 foot tall each at the moment, but the similarity is pretty striking currently. To me at least. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all your colleagues growing t. scop/cordo hybrids etc or are you talking about Echinopsis hybrids??

 

Cactus hybrids. Everything. Every breeder has a different field of expertise, but most of the crosses are with Trichocereus and Echinopsis. There also are crosses with Ariocarpus, Lophophora, Hildewintera, Ferocactus, Astrophytum, Epiphyllum, Turbinicarpus, Soehrensia, Lobivia, and so on. Botanically, T. cordobensis is nothing special. It is a cactus like any other.

 

I don’t disagree with your comments about hybridizing, but surely every genus in Cactaceae isn’t the same case???

 

I would recommend that you look into the general principles of hybridization. Not only Mendel’s laws, but also about dominance, which take place between crosses of different species. There is more to genetics than Mendel´s laws and a phenotype is a complex construct consisting of various traits. Here is a quote about F1 hybrids, which is especially important. It is safe to say that there is less variation within the F1 than there is in further hybrid generations like the F2, F3, etc. Most great hybrids that are produced over many generations and the stabilization of hybrids is a necessity.

Homogeneity and predictability—The genes of individual plant or animal F1 offspring of homozygous pure lines display limited variation, making their phenotype uniform and therefore attractive for mechanical operations and easing fine population management. Once the characteristics of the cross are known, repeating this cross yields exactly the same result.

Also interesting is this part on monohybrid crosses:

Generally, the monohybrid cross is used to determine the dominance relationship between two alleles. The cross begins with the parental (P1 or P) generation. One parent is homozygous for one allele, and the other parent is homozygous for the other allele. The offspring make up the first filial (F1) generation. Every member of the F1 generation is heterozygous. Crossing two members of the F1 generation produces the second filial (F2) generation. Probability theory predicts that three quarters of the F2 generation will have the dominant allele's phenotype. And the remaining quarter of the F2s will have the recessive allele's phenotype. When the F2 generation numbers several hundred or more, the observed results are very close to the predicted results.  

 

 

There are principles in genetics that apply to every plant. Alternatively, would you say that the principles of evolution or genetics are different for certain animals or only apply to apes, but not to chickens? Our world has some very strict laws of nature. There are some underlying principles that are needed to make evolution possible...one of which is phenotypic variation and the ability for a certain life form to branch off into a different direction. Here is an excerpt about phenotypic variation:

Phenotypic variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation) is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection. It is the living organism as a whole that contributes (or not) to the next generation, so natural selection affects the genetic structure of a population indirectly via the contribution of phenotypes. Without phenotypic variation, there would be no evolution by natural selection.[7]


Also important is that in many cases, you can only cross species or genera that are botanically close. If your parents are too far away (genetically), the cross fails or you end up having poor health. You can stabilize bad hybrids though. Hybridization plays a part in the large number of different plants grown from just one seedpod, but it´s not the most important reason we are getting wildly variable results from growing cacti from seeds. That is phenotypic variation, as mentioned before. Regardless if you grow hybrids or botanic species. This is a well-known fact and people take advantage of that by raising thousands of seedlings and only selecting the few interesting ones. There certainly are genetic differences between certain plant families, genera and sometimes species and the way they reproduce. There is no doubt about it, but in the greater picture of Trichocereus cultivation Trichocereus scopulicola or the Super Pedro or T. cordobensis are not different to other plants from the same genus. The laws of genetics are complicated and influenced by many factors and genes that are not directly visible. In theory, it is easy to guess the outcome of a cross if you know more about the dominant and recessive genes of the parents, but nature does not work that way because you have no access to these informations. Like mentioned before, there are very dominant fathers, intergeneric crosses, and in all these crosses between species, there is a clear tendency to end up with a large number of seedlings that are similar to the mother´s phenotype. Targeted breeding between certain strains that you want to stabilize by intentionally breeding out certain traits are different story.

 

For eg in my eyes a heap of seed raised spachianus would look identical to me, but my eyes see alot of variation in bridgesii.


How many T. spachianus that were grown from seeds (where you really know that they were grown from seeds, not just where it is possible that they were grown from seeds) do you know? Even without knowing the answer to that question, I think it´s safe to say that it´s probably less than the T. bridgesii hybrid seedlings that were grown from seeds that you saw, right? This is not a forum where many people grow Trichocereus spachianus; and the ones that do often times take cuttings from plants that are already mature. If grown from seeds, there is as much variation in Trichocereus spachianus as there is in Trichocereus bridgesii. The more generations, the more variations. All the laws of genetics also apply to Trichocereus spachianus and it´s actually a numbers game to get interesting mutants. Another option is that there is plenty of variability, but you don´t notice it on the first look because it´s more subtle than it is in these T. bridgesii hybrids. Some of the most interesting hybrids in this forum are already in cultivation for many generations, which increases the chance of getting weird offspring. Alternatively, maybe you just saw cultivars that were relatively uniform in their look. Nurseries usually distribute a limited number of stable cultivars because it´s easier to clone them, than it is to grow them from seeds. 

 

 I just think that these examples arent as small a percentage as you suggest.

 

Okay, how do you know that? I mean, I can only judge about the examples you provided in this thread. One of them has definitely interesting spines and is totally cool. How do you know that the differences in the photos have anything to do with hybridization? In most cases, it´s just the natural variability that lies within these plants. Sure, I never said that hybridization cannot produce T. bridgesii spines on a T. scopulicola. It´s just that the number of "normal" seedlings outnumbers the one of the special ones. Natural variation is not only a concept of hybrids, but of plant evolution itself. The only reason that regional forms and varieties exist is that these plants are so variable and can branch off into different directions all the time. It´s natural selection in effect. Of course this also has to do with natural hybridization, which takes place everywhere. However, if you use this wording then there are no pure species; only hybrids. The ability to produce regional forms is a fundamental element of evolution. It is not only about hybridization...it is about the phenotypic variation of life to make things possible, to create new strains in order to gain an advantage in life. 

 

I am certainly unsure about the photos that arent  mine,

 

Yeah, but that is an important problem. It´s just not possible to judge about fundamental principles of hybrid cultivation just by looking at photos where there is not enough data available. There is a large number of possibilities for the plants you posted. They can be hybrids, but there are also other options that just cannot be completely ruled out unless you have full control of the whole crossing and plant production, from the pollination to the adult plants. When cleaning seeds, one corn from the wrong fruit is enough and you have a very different plant. I have no doubts that some of the extraordinary hybrids shown here are correctly labeled. I know many people here take hybrid cultivation seriously. It´s just that you do not know anything about the genes of these plants. They could be fifth generation multihybrids, which change many things in the genetic markup. They could be preselected over many generations and it would take thousands of plants to produce a really funky one. Isn´t the name of the one parent “Funkoid”? Sounds like there is something weird going on with his genes, doesn´t it? From a hybrid point of view, it is a very interesting parent that should be used for further crosses. You just cant use that as an example of an average result. You know, please look into the process of hybrid stabilization to know what I mean. Sometimes, it takes generations and hundreds of plants to get one good result within a line of breeding. Sometimes it doesn´t because you have a very dominant father that just happens to meet the right mother under the right conditions.There are dominant fathers and Mendel´s laws have a huge influence on all the traits that these plants produce, but the phenotype is also affected by other factors like dominant genes. When Mendel came up with his ideas about pea genetics, it was pretty much the birth of genetics, but it wasn´t everything.  The second plant you posted looks like a typical hybrid with Trichocereus bridgesii as mother. It´s possible that this cross is the result of a very dominant father, but there is also the chance that it is mislabeled...or just a very uncommon hybrid. Maybe it was actually the reverse cross, or maybe a seed corn harvested from another fruit. As I said, I do not want to speculate because everything is possible here. I do not question the existence of dominant fathers, but I share my first hand experiences about dominant phenotypes and the frequency I encounter them. I just don´t think that the two photos you shown disprove anything I wrote before. I don´t know how often I wrote about natural variability, so I do not want to repeat it again here.

I just think that every case is unique and produces different results and with growers like zelly, interbeing, masterB  producing hundreds and hundreds of fruits, we  are starting to (and will continue) see some very interesting, strange and unexpected plants....

 

These days, many growers produce hundreds of fruits per year and even over multiple generations. It´s just logical that the number of weird hybrids goes up...but at the same time, I see very normal hybrids being posted all over our forums and groups and it´s rare that some of them are showing traits that I wouldn´t expect. It happens, but it´s rare. One of the reasons for this is that most of these hybrid crosses are not targeted and are not done over generations, as you would normally do if you would want to stabilize some traits.
In addition, some of the hybrids produced are third or fourth generation, which means the risk of bringing out hybrid traits that are not visible in the F1 generation, is getting higher the more you stabilize a hybrid line. I see many hybrids a week. Many growers post the results in our Facebook group, and the number of plants that are very normal for what they are is much higher than the ones with irregularities. There are traits which are very variable, eg spine length, spine color, epidermis color, flower color, etc. The fathers have a great influence on some of these, but there are also limits to their dominance. Mostly because a large number of the F1s, which tend to follow the phenotype of the mother or the father instead of a mix between the traits of the father and the mother. Depending on their genes, and in all these cases (and later crosses with the same parents) the dominant parent will be the dominant one. Some traits can be produced depending on the genetic situation, but the overall phenotype is something different and affected by more than one factor. We are talking about something very fundamentally here; most of the plants we see here are hybrids between certain species, not even hybrids between certain forms of the same species. I don´t find it surprising that a T. bridgesii that was pollinated with the pollen of a T. scopulicola ends up producing plants that are (roughly) of the same species as the mother itself. You know, the fruit ripened on the mother, so there has to be a close genetic proximity in order to get a successful fruit and seedlings, wouldn´t you think? In hybrid cultivation, it happens a lot that seedlings die off because the parents were a genetic mismatch and in many cases the pollination fails. The chance of success is higher if the outcome of a cross is very viable in a genetic sense. And in many cases, this means that there has to be a certain proximity, otherwise the miosis does not work. I find that quite normal actually. Do not confuse dominant and recessive traits with a complete reversal of the resulting species. It is unusual that Trichocereus bridgesii suddenly produces Trichocereus scopulicola seedlings. It is not impossible, but I just haven´t seen it as often as the other way around. And many other growers with years of experience agree. The color of the flower is a different story entirely and I totally agree that Mendel´s laws have a huge influence on flower color or certain traits like long spines, but it is more rare that you suddenly grow a T. scopulicola out of a T. bridgesii fruit. The same applies to pure species in the sense of the botanic definition. One last thing that is important to me because I feel like there is some confusion about that here: I do not question natural variability or phenotypic variation. I know that there are plants that have longer or shorter spines. That´s very normal and is not directly related to hybridization. You would have the same if you´d cross non-hybrids with each other.

 

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need somebody in my life that looks at me the way @Evil Genius looks at forum posts. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha Ha. :-D You know, we are all hybrid lovers here and I appreciate it when we are having a discussion about stuff like this. There is no right or wrong about this because the number of genetic possibilities is endless. For every rule, there is an exception and everything is possible with hybrids. Nature is full of hybrids and hybridization play an important part in evolution and the basic concept of survival of the fittest. I am not a geneticist and I can only judge about the experiences I made in practice. I know that I have to cross for many generations until I get the best possible results and it´s just rare that you have crazily uncommon F1s right away. I wish that would not be the case because it would make hybrid cultivation a lot easier. I know growers that dump loads of seedlings every year because they outcome was too normal compared to the parents. I am not one of them because I hate to throw viable plants away, but it´s common in the circles where every grower has special goals and objectives. So yeah, I just wanted to make sure everyone knows that I do not question that there are many cool hybrids. I am in the middle of cataloguing hybrids for my book and I´ve seen some remarkable plants. It´s just that there are many normal ones too and I don´t want to give anyone a false viewpoint of hybrid cultivation. Getting great hybrids can sometimes take many generations and hundreds of plants. Breeding life forms in general is a very rewarding, complex and interesting subject and everyone who deals with it ends up with more respect towards the general principles of life. It´s a crazy world we live in and it´s just fun to play around with this.

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 2

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
Sign in to follow this  

×