KK242 and thoughts on morphology

[Gunter]

Since KK242 does not pertain to a species and is only a collection number that refers to a location that includes many species, I though it relative to consider the current notions that KK242 are synonymous with T cuzcoensis.

Indeed T cuzcoensis probably occurs in the range that KK242 includes, however that is not the only species to occur in that range. One of the most interesting occurrences is that seed labeled KK242 had produced plants that are bridgesioid, I suspect that the seed does indeed come from the KK242 locality.

From Trout's Pages:

 

quote:

---

Apparently, KK242 means it was collected in Matucana at a particular elevation range. (pers. comm with Karel Knize in 2000)

 

Knize recognizes 9 distinct “KK242”; around half or so are short spined.

---

Note that this indicates that there are at least according to Knize, 4-5 long spined forms of KK242.

The idea that all long spined 242 are the same species seems dubious, it seems wrong to assume that any long spined form of KK242 is cuzcoensis.

I would like to propose the notion that there are more types of peruvianus than just the macrogonus esq. peruvianus. While some people have notions that any peruvianus that is not the macrogonus peruvianus must be cuzcoensis, I would argue that there is little evidence for this, and rather a decent amount of evidence against it.

That is to say that T peruvianus exists in several forms, and is a diverse species. The macrogonus like forms exist in both feral and cultivated forms, which should be noted for certain distinctions as well, if only for the main distinction of the location of collection.

When considering the identity of KK242 plants that have longer spines, the plants should be considered as possibly synonymous with cuzcoensis, but one should also be open to the possibility that they are indeed a form of T peruvianus, that is quit distinct from the macrogonus type populations.

The notion that any plant that looks similar can be identified as a KK242 AKA T cuzcoensis seems dubious, particularly if there are 4-5 different long spined 242 forms. It is identifying a plant to 4-5 possibilities. It should be noted that there are both active and inactive (mescaline containing) forms of plants that look like the ones getting called KK242 lately. One test I suggest is that the bitterness of the flesh should be tested. All active specimens I am aware of have some degree of bitterness, and in many cases the more active ones seem to have more bitterness as well as a certain taste to that bitterness.

I suggest that each plant grown from seed be evaluated independently instead of lumping it into some morphological group.

Also something to consider is the similarity of Bridgesii spination to Pallarensis spination, and the notion that all of these plants are representative of a diverging species complex seems more likely than the notion the are diverse species somehow merging into homogeneity via the recent generation of intermediate forms due to deliberate cultivation and transportation.

One note I find worthy of consideration is the following.

 

quote:

---

The Mochica culture of northern coastal Peru [100 BC to 700 AD] is also known to have used San Pedro ritually. Its use was not limited to solitary shamans but was intricately woven into the social fabric if both of these cultures.

---

Trout's notes 3B page 108.

The other culture is Nazca [100-800 AD]. Keep in mind that widespread use of these cacti in these cultures could result in divergent phenotypes. Nazca were southern coastal Peru, and Mochica were northern coastal Peru. I would suggest that the people who have traveled in the area that report that the plants are a single species with divergent morphological peaks are correct in their observation.

[ 31. August 2005, 01:28: Message edited by: Archaea ]

[strangebrew]

 

quote:

---

Note that this indicates that there are at least according to Knize, 4-5 long spined forms of KK242.

 

---

Why rely so much on one man who has shown to be unreliable in various ways and suspect in others i.e. the stretching of a photo that you yourself noticed.

 

quote:

---

The idea that all long spined 242 are the same species seems dubious, it seems wrong to assume that any long spined form of KK242 is cuzcoensis.

 

---

There are old plants in Oz that look like KK242 but may have nothing to do with Knize so they really shouldn't be referred to as such.

I think we should forget about the term KK242 and start referring to them as cuzcoensinoid or cuzconoid or something similar.

 

quote:

---

One of the most interesting occurrences is that seed labeled KK242 had produced plants that are bridgesioid

---

Couldn't this just be the result of poor seed management?

 

quote:

---

One test I suggest is that the bitterness of the flesh should be tested.

---

Agreed. All plants should be tested before judgements are made. A small nick is all that is required.

[Gunter]

 

quote:

---

Why rely so much on one man who has shown to be unreliable in various ways and suspect in others i.e. the stretching of a photo that you yourself noticed.

---

I am not sure it was he who altered that photo, but that was disconcerting. I think though that he is being honest when he mentioned that he acknowledges about 9 KK242 plants, given that KK242 has nothing to do with a type of plant and has everything to do with a broad collection locality, it makes sense that in a large area there would be diverse populations. Some of his claims seem supported by the evidence, others seem refuted. His cuttings seem inconsistent, so his seeds may well be inconsistent too, however if these plants are as I hold them to be, all members of a species complex then we have to consider the possibility that morphological traits may not be as consistent as we would like them to be, in individual populations of seed grown plants all sourced from the same parents. I think we would do well to consider Knizes claims (and the evidence for and against them) on an individual basis, rather than dismissing or affirming them outright.

 

quote:

---

There are old plants in Oz that look like KK242 but may have nothing to do with Knize so they really shouldn't be referred to as such.

 

I think we should forget about the term KK242 and start referring to them as cuzcoensinoid or cuzconoid or something similar.

 

---

This makes sense, but I wonder where the plants came from. Also I believe that there are several plants that resemble the cuzcoensis form in question, that are not synonymous with it. I believe that there can be distinct populations of plants with a close phenotypic resemblance, and a diverse chemotype. For example there are several plants that resemble the 'Juuls giant' clone, but are chemically different. TJG has not been shown to contain mescaline, whereas some plants which resemble it seem to contain mescaline. Further study is needed, but it seems clear that phenotype is just a single factor and cannot be considered definitive.

 

quote:

---

Couldn't this just be the result of poor seed management?

---

Yes, and it could also be related to meiosis and fertilization and come from natural variation. Considering that some of the bridgesii KK242 I know of were grown from batches of seed that produced forms that some would call cuzcoensis, and that some traits like the color of skin and spines remain very similar, while other traits vary; indicates that we might not know until genetic tests can be done.

 

quote:

---

One test I suggest is that the bitterness of the flesh should be tested.

Agreed. All plants should be tested before judgments are made. A small nick is all that is required.

 

---

I think giving each and every clone a unique tracking number (though a daunting task) is a very wise move to make considering the growing horticultural population.

The issue of diversity that Trout illustrates in TN3B is not about to get clearer in the horticultural world. It is going to become all the more complex, and only serious record keeping and data sharing will prevent total confusion. Then again total confusion can also serve its purpose, as can deliberate disinformation/misinformaton.

[ 23. August 2005, 06:48: Message edited by: Archaea ]

[strangebrew]

Just been having another look at this page of Knize's plants -

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...Trichs_2004.jpg

1688 & 1911 are the same photo.

1670 & 2151 look like the same plant but on a slightly different angle, but it's impossible to say for certain.

0242 looks unnaturally stretched.

and Archaea noticed that 0338 & 0340 were the same but stretched.

All in all extremely dodgy!

and don't even start on the plant names!

[ 23. August 2005, 07:17: Message edited by: strangebrew ]

[faslimy]

Here is something I rescued from a nursey about 4" tall and rotting at the base

/edit and heres the picture oops

It looks like KK242 but not of the 'cuzcoensis' can I call it a strain? Maybe it will display more with maturity but it definatly looks different

[ 23. August 2005, 11:44: Message edited by: faslimy ]

[strangebrew]

Wow what a score! That's a really nice looking plant.

I'd be more inclined towards it being macrogonoid.

[Gunter]

It looks interesting.

The longer central spines do look a lot like the cuzcoensis spines, but then spines like that can be common on a few Trichocereus species so that means little.

The white fuzz of the areoles, the short radial spines and the more horizontal depressions (transverse) above the areoles are reminiscent of the Huancabamba pachanoid.

Its lack of a glaucous bloom seems to separate it from the macrovianoid group in my opinion, this is also something common to the Huancabamba pachanoid.

Now if we consider that these plants are all variations upon a theme, that is to say they are all member of a species complex, then this plant fits right in, a pachanoi type with longer centrals, such plants are not unknown from KK242 collection numbers. For example Gusto has a lovely KK242 plant with short spines, for the most part that is, with age the plant has long central spines. Look at the plant on page 304 of TN3B to get an idea of what Gusto's plant might look like.

Now if the plants are all members of a species complex then the form Faslimy depicts is intermediate in comparison to certain morphological peaks. If the plants are all separate species, (a dubious claim by my own assertion) then the plant might be considered either a distinct species, or a hybrid. Considering that some explorers of the region (not Knize) have stated from first hand observation that they believe that the plants are members of a species complex, then the plant in the photo (a beautiful specimen I should add) is what could be called a small spine peruvianus, that happens to have longer centrals.

I do wonder if it has a propensity to branch at the base, or grow prostrate with age.

[trucha]

To play the devil's advocate, I should ask a few questions:

1) Why are not all KK242 either peruvianus or intermediate with peruvianus?

What features actually violate the description of peruvianus?

I should also ask WHO's description of peruvianus is being used?

2) Why is cuzcoensis synonymous with any KK242?

Which KK242 is it said to be synonymous with?

What plants were used for this determination, were they sterile or in flower?

What were their sources?

3) On what morphological basis did the description of cuzcoensis equate it with peruvianus KK242?

What cuzcoensis material was used as a reference?

How was it proven that the reference material actually WAS cuzcoensis?

WAS it proven or was it assumed that the ID was right?

This is often an important question.

4) What features of the assorted plants at Matucana would cause them to be viewed as separate species rather than simply variants of peruvianus?

If, for instance, one looks at chiloensis they can find nearly as many distinct variants as there are microniches on a given mountain. Pasacana shows a similar thing in the wild. So does bridgesii.

Why should not peruvianus do something similar?

Why should not pachanoi?

4) Where was a good description of cuzcoensis published? (To me, Ressler's seems the best but it does not entirely jibe with the material at UC Berkeley which was wild collected near Cuzco as cuttings)

Where was a good description of peruvianus published? (To me Backeberg 1959 "Die Cactaceae" SEEMS to be the best but it also seems to capable lump some things together or at least being incapable of differentiating them)

Where was a good description of macrogonus published?

By good descriptions I mean descriptions capable of providing information that is suitable for discriminating between these three.

5) What features are capable of distinguishing between peruvianus and macrogonus?

What descriptions are used for basing this upon?

As hybridization has been repeatedly demonstrated to take place spontaneously and to produce successful offspring in both horticulture and in the wild, how is it determined that variant plants or divergent subpopulations are not hybrids?

I would suggest that the features being used in the above discussion are unreliable and inadequate for species determinations or segregations.

[ 30. August 2005, 21:24: Message edited by: trout ]

[trucha]

On Knize's stretched photo, my best guess is this was done to bring the images into uniform size and was done by someone who did not notice the stretch.

I've done the same thing myself when using handles to drag things to a larger size but forgetting to hold down the shift key.

[Gunter]

 

quote:

---

 

1) Why are not all KK242 either peruvianus or intermediate with peruvianus?

 

What features actually violate the description of peruvianus?

 

I should also ask WHO's description of peruvianus is being used?

 

---

I don't know.

From a certain standpoint it seems consensus has more value than truth in definition. If there is a certain image, albeit inaccurate, that is identified with a specific look of a cactus, even within a degree of variation, then then a certain specific binomial name attached to that image then over time consensus seems to deviate from any standardized definition. This is exacerbated by the inadequacies of the currently accepted archaic botanical definitions resting upon vague definitions. I wonder how arbitrary the species names are in these plants.

 

quote:

---

 

2) Why is cuzcoensis synonymous with any KK242?

 

Which KK242 is it said to be synonymous with?

 

What plants were used for this determination, were they sterile or in flower?

 

What were their sources?

 

---

There was a consensus emerging that forms of KK242 from seed were synonymous with T peruvianus var cuzcoensis or T cuzcoensis forms observed presumably in cultivation. I lack the details.

 

quote:

---

 

3) On what morphological basis did the description of cuzcoensis equate it with peruvianus KK242?

 

What cuzcoensis material was used as a reference?

 

How was it proven that the reference material actually WAS cuzcoensis?

 

WAS it proven or was it assumed that the ID was right?

 

This is often an important question.

---

I wonder what constitutes proof myself, however lets assume that it came from comparison of KK242 seedlings, and a consistent look for some of them, and then a comparison with labeled T cuzcoensis, either collected cutting or seeds. I am not sure.

 

quote:

---

 

4) What features of the assorted plants at Matucana would cause them to be viewed as separate species rather than simply variants of peruvianus?

 

If, for instance, one looks at chiloensis they can find nearly as many distinct variants as there are microniches on a given mountain. Pasacana shows a similar thing in the wild. So does bridgesii.

 

Why should not peruvianus do something similar?

 

Why should not pachanoi?

---

I don't know. Might it be possible to look at gene pools and evaluate feral breeding populations? Where does one description end and another begin? Is it where it was collected? Is it what it looks like? What if we are only talking about two species complexes all together? What if we are talking about dozens of species?

I wonder what the practical application of any system of categorical reference would be in this case. Is the taxonomic foundation of the entheogenic Trichocereus well supported in any probabilistic certainty?

 

quote:

---

 

As hybridization has been repeatedly demonstrated to take place spontaneously and to produce successful offspring in both horticulture and in the wild, how is it determined that variant plants or divergent subpopulations are not hybrids?

---

If they are species and not sub species, isn’t it more likely we would see uniform hybrids that are not inbred? As opposed to recessive variation? Then again…

[ 31. August 2005, 19:31: Message edited by: Archaea ]

[trucha]

That is sort of my point.

The consensus agreements you refer to are so far as I know based mainly on sterile material.

People using that to make their judgements will find themselves revisiting this area over and over in the future.

Michael Smith's observations and mental efforts are laudable but he sometimes wants more solidity in understanding than the facts presently warrant

More power to his ongoing unfolding process and his successful future understandings though.

I've got to add though that I never could locate the stuff at the Nook to view without signing up. I can't even view Michael's images in some cases without being asked to sign up to another yahoo group.

I'm begging anyone out there to please stop asking me to join more groups! I barely have time for this one here right now.

The basic species are not what is at question as much as the descriptions and the intermediate materials. A little bit of data is being milked for far more than it is worth.

The wealth of hybrids and hence intermediates adds layers of cloulding of course

Check out some of the new (and old) photos I've been posting and compare them to the same plants in San Pedro.

Most of these cuzcoensis to peruvianus types share many features. That is why it is not a good idea to base assignments of synonymity on nonflowering plants.

I've been deliberately posting only nonflowering photos as I want to take this discussion wherever it needs to go.

All of the material that people are iscussing needs identification of where it came from. At least what grower or series of growers. Or in the case of Knize how it came from Knize.

peruvianus is highly variable.

For somone to say there are more than one species being called peruvianus or even KK242, there needs to be some sort of justification.

Right or wrong is something we will never know unless reasons can be found to support assertions of distinctness or synonimity.

The likelihood of molecular tools being applied for this purpose any time soon seems nil.

I'm trying to focus on uploading images as I think that by the time I am done with this, a far better basis to discuss this picture will be here for that purpose.

I've been using links not embedded images to keep the loading size fast as I plan for this list to grow substantially in the next few days.

Once I've got something in one place to discuss, I'll return to discussing this more.

However, all of that said:

Proof must always be demanded not just someone's pronouncements accepted without justification.

For a person to say two plants are the same, there needs to be reasons that have meaning.

"Accept no substitutes."

Never buy the Emperor's new clothes, consensus discussions are a facsimile for scientific procedure whether in Basel or the US.

Just because its 'hard' does not mean taking short cuts have the same weight as doing real work.

They have merit for identifying areas where more work is needed and can in fact work nicely in araes where plenty of solid data exists. However, the problem with experts is that most of them seem unable to live with saying "I don't know" about areas where the reality is that they don't know or are working with inadequate data to make meaningful conclusions.

This is one of those areas so far as I can tell.

Always question authorities or anyone you think is an authority. Failure to do so can be a greivious error in judgement.

If anyone thinks I am any sort of expert they should always question anything I say that they disagree with.

I would also love to find some sort of way of accessing the existing discussions on this convoluted topic. Right now what is here is scattered throughout a bunch of threads.

Does anyone have a list of the more pertinent posts?

[Benzito]

Trout, if anyone has kept tabs on all the different discussions over the past few months, I reckon it would be Archaea.

He's always posting links to old discussions, etc.

I've been reading them all, but not keeping track of them.

Archaea? You got any listing of discussions on this topic?

[trucha]

I would suggest that the behavior of the F1s lends support to the notion that we are not looking at just species and subspecies but rather an internested set of hybrid swarmings involving a far smaller number of original species and subspecies (some of which may already be gone in any pure form)

The most important thing to remember is that most of us can't say diddly about what is growing in the wilds of Peru as we have not yet done the field work.

Cactus people I know who have been visiting Cuzco and the area around it describe a very peruvianus like bluegreen cactus in abundance as well as greener spinier ones. All one species or more than one species? Its presently anyone's guess until someone goes to Peru and does some field work on these species.

I hope to before too long but thought it would have happened already.

[Gunter]

I am curious about what species definitions are best for cacti. The topic at the nook that interested me the most explored species definitions and the Taxonomic code.

In the case of defining, separating or joining and populations as species we need a good definition.

Imagine you have 1 population;

over time it spreads to two locations and is cultivated and isolated in those two populations.

Over significant time distinct subpopulations of the two divergent populations form, likewise the forms of the two populations meet at certain locations and make intermediate forms.

Over a very long period of time, imagine how much variation a single species can give rise to with human action and the above method.

Hypothetically imagine that this all started with a single species.

You know Trout, I wouldn't dream of not questioning authority. That is still some great advice though.

Benzito-maybe when I have more time I can make a list of relevant topics etc.

[ 07. September 2005, 14:51: Message edited by: Archaea ]

[strangebrew]

Trout, I think you've commented in most of the indepth threads here of late but maybe you haven't seen the "Hybrids of Trichocereus" thread.

You can look in the Nook instantly once you've joined, just go to the Cacti forum and read the pinned threads up the top, then never go back.

If you can!

[trucha]

I'm hoping NOT to join yet more chat groups that I do not have time to participate in adequately.

Covering similar ground at two different chat groups also means lots of repeated conversations.

I'm also very hesitant as most of the discussions I've encountered so far rely heavily on variable morphological elements that are in reality close to meaningless for basing decisions.

It even seems fairly pointless to try and step into this if the conversations I've had with Michael and several others are any indication of the larger content.

Lots of good thoughts from people who I respect but a tendency to make premature conclusions seems to be rampant.

Besides, by the time I get back from my previous post here there are usually too many questions raised in the interim for me to address all of them.

I'm still trying to figure out how to spend an adequate amount of time here with too little free time in life so I am not sure how another chat groups would work.

I'm focusing on assembling a photo collection here specifically for the sake of discussion. It will likely take me at least another day to get the foundation of that laid (ie uploaded).

[Benzito]

Strangebrew, I don't think registration at the Nook is the problem for Trout.

He is a scientist, not a hobbyist, and probably doesn't have the time to be a forum whore like we all are. :D

I appreciate having someone so knowledgeable posting on here, but I get sick of having to repeat myself with cross-posts. Imagine how many times an 'expert' like him would've repeated the same things over and over?

Once you start posting at a forum, you can't stop.

edit: Looks like Trout already answered, while I was typing.

[ 08. September 2005, 03:33: Message edited by: Benzito ]

[trucha]

Its actually worse than that.

A good bit of this stuff I've already discussed directly with Michael AND discussed again with other individuals via email and discussed again at yet another chat group a good while back.

It gets almost aversive revisiting an area where my participation seems to be motivated by what I see as public pronouncements of premature assessments based on largely sterile material and too few meaningful data points.

The biggest problems I would suggest is that too few people are taking the time to adequately question what they are using as references. In many cases I would suggest the identifications are unreliable.

Consider plants such as the Huancabamba peruvianus or the CCC or CC material sold as short spined peruvianus. Or even Carlos Ostolaza's high altitude collection labeled pachanoi. (Photos of all of these are now posted here. See by-species listing at http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/ubb/ult...c;f=6;t=000919)

There is an interesting discussion also under the post of those odd spiny pachanoi seedlings. I would suggest people reread the first few comments there. (Not mentioned as criticism of anyone's voice there just an observation!)

The assumption of accurate ID by our suppliers seems common and is in fact what we would like to hope we could take for granted. Sadly it appears that it is not.

There is an old adage in information processing circles: GIGO or garbage in means garbage out.

Accurate identification or evaluation of material is critical prior to using it for starting discussions about what is what. Worse, not everyone reading the posts or published discussion of short-spined peruvianus and long-spined pachanois understands that this is the case and assumes that there is some sort of demonstrable validity for the specific identifications. Proof of the species being discussed actually being the species they are being called (or at least reasoning as to why they are believed to be accurately identified) should be the starting point for any discussions about these plants.

Too much of the assorted materials being discussed on this subject originated from Knize. Almost anything coming from NMCR for instance would be Knize-sourced unless bearing some other collector's number.