Original San Pedro

[Fathom]

What is believed to be the very first San Pedro cactus population?

 

How did San Pedro evolve or change from this to the forms we know today?

 

What is the difference between natural selection upon the alleles of San Pedro populations verses the effect of artificial selection upon said populations?

 

How might the variations in phenotype, chemotype and genotype that we know from present day populations of these cacti relate to their evolutionary history over time?

 

I wanted to share these questions about this evolutionary history and status of San Pedro cacti as an introduction to the consideration of an alternative theory of their evolution and taxonomic status. 

 

I would like to suggest that the form of cactus widely known as Trichocereus pachanoi (or E. pachanoi, but I will largely use the Trichocereus genus for discussion) is a domesticated form of San Pedro cactus that has been shaped by human selection, propagation and distribution. This has resulted in a plant which I believe to be distinct from the original population of the plants. I believe the desirable traits selected for include short or nearly absent spines and high alkaloid content dominated by mescaline as the major alkaloid, as well as other aspects.

 

It is my belief that nature itself does not select for absent spines and high mescaline and that San Pedro populations, once established, if not subject to human selective pressure then gradually lose these traits, gaining increased alkaloid variation and increasing spine size, count and number. 

 

Much as Zea or Corn originates as a hybrid between two distinct species, I suspect that San Pedro is a product of hybridization from an original population that was remarkably different than the cacti we call San Pedro today.  I believe this ancient population was larger, wider, had more aggressive spines, a thicker and woodier vascular core and differences in alkaloid quality and quantity and that hybridization of this population with other plants occurred, which resulted in plants that were more desirable in terms of their traits, with these plants being selectively propagated over time in an ongoing process which gradually resulted in the production of San Pedro cacti, which were domesticated further by repeated selection over time.

 

When a population of these plants is allowed to naturally reproduce over time, they slowly change, and become mixed populations which exhibit variations including plants with longer spines, less alkaloid or different non-mescaline alkaloids becoming predominant as well as other changes. Over time populations slowly drift from active populations to populations with specimens including active and inactive forms and eventually giving rise to populations with few to no active forms. 

 

This theory states that populations like T. cuzcoensis and it's allies, are not distinct species, but are rather populations of San Pedro cacti that have reverted over time because of natural selection, to feral forms.   The idea is that various populations are in various stages of reversion and adaptation from their cultigenic domesticated forms. Each of these populations can be addressed specifically in terms of this and in relation to its variations, genetics and its cultural and environmental history, often over thousands of years. 

 

Note that this theory is unknown online and disagrees strongly with the common consensus about the taxonomy and evolution of these plants, which I feel is highly confused and largely incoherent. 

 

I strongly suspect that the ancestor of domesticated San Pedro was akin to Trichocereus atacamensis or Trichocereus terscheckii.

This is a cursory introduction to the theory, which I will address further as time and interest permits.

 

 

 

 

 

[Wood Chuck]

The Sanpedro (Pachanio) non Pc, seems to be more abundant in Europe than in America and Australia, I often wonder why this so.

[zelly]

On 8/21/2024 at 3:16 PM, Wood Chuck said:

The Sanpedro (Pachanio) non Pc, seems to be more abundant in Europe than in America and Australia, I often wonder why this so.

thats an easy one-- the first people on the scene were Europeans, probably starting with F Ritter.

 

[fyzygy]

8 hours ago, zelly said:

first people

first colonial botanists, rather.

The USA seems to have prided itself on a "bigger, faster" growth mentality, so perhaps that explains the popularity of the PC. Smaller spines being an added bonus among suburban gardeners not too fond of the exotic. USA and Oz are settler societies, with a perceived abundance of wide open space to be filled, and quickly. There are also perhaps some significant climatic differences that make the PC less suited to European gardens. Pure conjecture on my part, so I'd love to know more from those in the know.  

[thegreatartist]

Ive been thinking about writing a sci-fi novel about psychoactive plats that starts to produce some good drugs in order to get people to propagate them so the plants can eventually take control of the planet. 

Though I find it interesting to rethink the evolution and cultivation of these plants, I think your question will be impossible to put into an empirical study. Also there are species with short/almost abscent spines within the trichocereus that contains only trace amounts of alkaloids, like T. Riomizquiensis. And the first collection of the named Pachanoi by Britton and Rose took place in the 1920s in ecuadors ChanChan Valley. That specimen was a short spined plant.

From all my knowledge on this subject, I think youre asking a question with ni answer, its too much data and too many loose ties. 

Regards. 

[withdrawl clinic]

makes me remember a movie, i saw on sbs. a glasshouse full of plant using mind control, on there carer.

 

nice topic, i know most south american shamans, sought either 4 cornered specimens and many cornered specimens up to 13 corners and more, but only uneven numbers.

i don't know if all pedros, have the abilety to form many corners. i've never seen this trait in cultivation.