Jump to content
The Corroboree
andean_dreamer

id request

Recommended Posts

I am certainly interested in finding support for the ancient entheogenic use of T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola, but until this is found I don’t think it of benefit to ponder such ideas as whether it was the source of Peruvian tradition or that these two species where breed by man with the intention to create more powerful entheogenic agents.
Again I think you have a great deal of evidence at home, that plenty exists in other places/aspects as well. I doubt you are interested in digging through archeological journals, but I imagine that such a practice could also give important data about this. Simply plotting out locations of plant populations in relation to known habitation and thoroughfares, and using other populations for examination of locations for evidence of ancient habitation can give a great deal of data that will relate to the subject.
Without the easy evidence, the use of the plant itself in a longstanding traditional basis as revealed in archeology or current traditional shamanic use, then the other two questions are not even worthy to pursue, as they both are dependent on the first being found as true. If the first isn’t true then they in all likelihood were not intentionally breed, nor could Bolivia be the source of Trichocereus use in Peru.
If it is easy evidence you want, then you may not ever find it either way. Evidence is there, we have many puzzle pieces and it is not easy to interpret it, however I am interested In hearing your own notions on the origin of the species, and the practices and the locations and cultures and timeframes involved.

As for the easy evidence, the archaeology of the area is still in very early stages, thus a lack of evidence in an area lacking exploration is hardly substantial enough to support a claim that archaeological evidence does not exist. I believe it probably does exist and it certainly exists for several cultural and religious connections between Northern Peru and the area of Tiwanako. The second easy evidence or extant shamanic use traced back also strikes me as unrealistic, also I wonder if you are suggesting the only authentic traditional use was shamanic, I think traditional use could have been festive/recreational as was the case with Teonanacatl in Mesoamerica. Does festive use occur in Bolivia?

I think some of your argument is analogous to denying aspects of evolution due to the incomplete nature of the fossil record. Archeological evidence like ancient animals capable of being fossilized is not commonly preserved, and is much less frequently discovered, the phrase "much less frequently" may be a huge understatement.

Though I may be mistaken in my assertions, I think parsimony and the available evidence withstand your criticism above.

I do not seek to convince you rather I seek your feedback and criticism on this, thus far I am not concerned with any of the issues you raise and I will consider additional evidence as it becomes available.

In my opinion the answer to the question of T scop and bridgesii being the product of artificial selection is: probably. This extends in this context to traditional use as well. I see the evidence that does exist as supporting this far more than any alternative I have considered.

Likewise as to taxonomy, you may dicern my defintions of taxonomy play a key role in my consideration of this species and the involved populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archaea, if this was the defense of your thesis in a masters program you would fail. I understand your points, but your argument is flawed when you think that the side that doesn't find evidence that something exists must bear the burden of proving that the evidence doesn't exist and just hasn't been found; and that since they can't find the evidence that something doesn't exists it therefore in likelihood does exists.

I am not opposed to your contention here, I would like to believe it, but you still have provided very little real evidentiary support; and what support you have is itself outweighed by the speculation you make from it. I look forward to the day you can prove your points, but you haven't yet, as if you had I would agree. I am not arguing against you to be contentious.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archaea, if this was the defense of your thesis in a masters program you would fail.

I am not opposed to your contention here, I would like to believe it, but you still have provided very little real evidentiary support; and what support you have is itself outweighed by the speculation you make from it. I look forward to the day you can prove your points, but you haven't yet, as if you had I would agree. I am not arguing against you to be contentious.

~Michael~

This isn't a masters thesis Mike, its the internet. I think your contention is merely your opinion and that people who have expertise in pertinent areas will not and do not share it. By all means point me to the experts and lets ask them what they think.

I think you are adept at debate, I do not wish to debate you but rather compare the evidence and the facts as they presently exist. A man skilled at debate can argue anything regardless of truth or validity. I don't want to go there, I'd rather have a mature discussion free of tricks and tactics.

As far as your notions of speciation and de-speciation, I believe they are academically invalid and I encourage you to go seek out a trained botanist and vascular plant taxonomist. I have and have spent a lot of time discussing this with them. I have talked with an Andean specialist about agricultural technology as well. I would love for you to find people who are well studied in those areas who will raise issue with my notions on the taxonomy and utility of these plants.

The logic you use is in some instances seems to be purely argumentative debate tactics. For example claiming that the idea that a chemical profile in one specific context can extend to other contexts involving distant unrelated plant families, is only argumentative, it is not valid. I think I have provided far more supportive evidence and indications of my notions than you have of the contrary. While I have never seen you admit you could be mistaken (in any thread at any site about any topic), I have done so repeatedly but at the same time give reasons why I believe what I do.

I mentioned I am not out to convince you Mike, but I think that you are mistaken about several things here. The first is the taxonomic division of species that are not worthy of taxonomic distinction. The second is the role of humanity in shaping that species at a point before they reached the present diversity which I will once more point out is entirely congruent with a domesticated species such as Canis, Brassica or others. Though these two areas have many aspects involved and I can't help but feel that in your attempt at refutation your lack of alternative suggestions and explanations indicates that your motive is argumentative. Its ok though, we both like to argue, I know that and I won't hold it against you.

I would love for you to provide your own outline of the situation.

What is your opinion and notion of the MRCA of this complex? Was it domesticated or just some of its descendants? What do you think is the major naturally selective pressure that shaped these cacti in both form and chemistry?

Can you show any examples of plants with mescaline as the predominant alkaloid with few other alkaloids present? If so what selective pressure resulted in it?

I know we disagree on the biological roles of alkaloids as well. I have seen you as quite the naysayer over the years and I would very much love to hear alternative proposals in lieu of what you seem to be so quick to deny as a possibility.

Every one of my proposals can be investigated further and I have mentioned the fields of study that can accommodate this. I am not pursing these ideas in a bubble, rather I seek to commensurate them with multiple fields including genetics, taxonomy, archaeology, Ethnobotany and archaeoethnobotany. I would like to see you commensurate your taxonomic assertions with the field of vascular plant taxonomy. For someone who has not had any formal training in taxonomy I think your knowledge is quite impressive, but in need of being refined.

I understand your points, but your argument is flawed when you think that the side that doesn't find evidence that something exists must bear the burden of proving that the evidence doesn't exist and just hasn't been found; and that since they can't find the evidence that something doesn't exists it therefore in likelihood does exists.

You are mistaken. I do not think that at all nor is that the basis of any of my arguments. It is a much better description of the side you seem to be taking. Why not elaborate upon how you think I think what you say I do so as to allow me to demonstrate?

It almost seems you are saying you can know what evidence exists without looking, and that it goes contrary to the other supportive evidences and relevant aspects. I think your attempts at refutation lack support. While a reasonable doubt for my exceptions does exist, parsimony seems to indicate that an alternative explanation must be accounted for in any attempts at genuine refutation.

Can you give any supportive evidence of reproductive isolation in the involved plants?

Can you give a supported explanation of how scop and bridgesii came to be entheogenic cacti that can be described as subspecies of others used in ancient times, how they can exist in the same range of the cultures involved and not have been used, distributed or cultivated by the cultures involved?

Can you give a supported explanation of how a culture which by expert accounts should have had rather advanced botanical knowledge about the mechanisms of fertilization and seed propagation, and used them with all of its cultivated crops except the cacti?

Can you give an outline of the history of the area as indicated by the available archaeological evidence and then apply it to the cactus situation as you see fit?

Can you support how a religious connection between the Chavín and Tiwanako can exist, while the Chavín used the cacti religiously, active cacti occur in the area of Tiwanako that can be described as subspecies of the same group used by the Chavín, and support how the Tiwanako cacti are just there and were not used? Support how the religious and cultural connection could not have involved the cacti and reconcile that with reason or parsimony.

I do not claim proof, I claim that any denial of something so well supported and indicated by reason, traits, and archeology requires support.

Can you support how you can claim a lack of archeological evidence for something exists in an areas that has been little explored? How about when the little evidence that does exist shows there are clear cultural and spiritual connections between the largely unexplored area and an area where there is archaeological evidence of the use and cultivation of these cacti?

Please feel free to share your findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thought I am taking your issues with the ideas a little too seriously, its all constructive critisism in a certain light. Yet again I feel I owe you an apology for the aggression I am showing, please forgive me I was taking it too hard. I'll try to develop some tact...

I think searching for evidence could be a lot of fun regardless of if I am wrong or right.

On that point the idea that these speculative conclusions, although indicated, are not fact and are in need of more direct support or the falsification of alternative possibilities. I think this is one of the things I find attractive about the topic and would love to research it further.

Thanks Mike, for the argumentative provocation, even though you were not being argumentative for its own sake. I think William Blake was right as least sometimes in that opposition is true friendship, or at least has its benefits. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things (or so)

First I would say this is most likely not a pachanoi or a peruvianus. (Unless perhaps if involving pachanoi as ONE of its parents.)

Its a gorgeous plant though.

My first guess based on its appearance is that it may be an intergeneric hybrid involving pachanoi.

My second guess would be that it is something else, maybe something new, maybe not even a trich (there are a handful of uncommon trich-like cacti in northern Peru and Ecuador), but whatever it is FLOWERS are needed before much can be said that is not purely speculative or worth more than its volume of air.

Part of its appearance does appear to be due to dessication.

One thing I should comment on it that I am still totally unclear as to why any of the so-called short-spined peruvianus are actually properly called or considered to be peruvianus?

All discussions I've heard on this so far have been rather Ptolemic and I have yet to hear a rationale or justification that holds water.

As far as I can determine all "original" identifications of short-spined peruvianus appear to be based on the assumption that their earlier identifications as peruvianus by horticultural suppliers or collectors were correct.

One came via Bob Smoley who is fairly well known for casual labeling of intermediate trichs, another via CC and/or CCC, the latter of whom my conversations have indicated are not at all well informed about peruvianus in general, and another was from seed both collected and named by an amateur with no rationale included for the name assignment (and showing no responsiveness to my inquiry on the matter). Identification of any of these as peruvianus begs to be questioned.

Putative pachanoi hybrids or intermediates would seem far more correct as a tentative name assignment for any and all of these.

I lacked time to read more than about half or so of the voluminous postings above. I will try to create time this week to spend reading and writing at the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things (or so)

First I would say this is most likely not a pachanoi or a peruvianus. (Unless perhaps if involving pachanoi as ONE of its parents.)

Its a gorgeous plant though.

My first guess based on its appearance is that it may be an intergeneric hybrid involving pachanoi.

My second guess would be that it is something else, maybe something new, maybe not even a trich (there are a handful of uncommon trich-like cacti in northern Peru and Ecuador), but whatever it is FLOWERS are needed before much can be said that is not purely speculative or worth more than its volume of air.

Part of its appearance does appear to be due to dessication.

One thing I should comment on it that I am still totally unclear as to why any of the so-called short-spined peruvianus are actually properly called or considered to be peruvianus?

All discussions I've heard on this so far have been rather Ptolemic and I have yet to hear a rationale or justification that holds water.

As far as I can determine all "original" identifications of short-spined peruvianus appear to be based on the assumption that their earlier identifications as peruvianus by horticultural suppliers or collectors were correct.

One came via Bob Smoley who is fairly well known among professional cactus producers for casual labeling of intermediates, another via CC and/or CCC, the latter of which my conversations have indicated are not at all well informed about peruvianus in general, and another was from seed both collected and named by an amateur with no rationale included for the name assignment (and showing no responsiveness to my inquiry on the matter). Identification of any of these as peruvianus begs to be questioned.

Putative pachanoi hybrids or intermediates would seem far more correct as a tentative name assignment for any and all of these.

I lacked time to read more than about half or so of the voluminous postings above. I will try to create time this week to spend reading and writing at the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey KT, regarding the “short spined T. peruvianus” I suppose it has retained this name as due to me at least on one case, that being the case of the Cactus Corral (CC) “T. peruvianus,” the material which I later believe was sold to California Cactus Center (CCC) when CC was looking to get rid of the “large cactus” collection. At that time the CC plant was known only to the owner as “T. peruvianus,” and he wasn’t aware of any other form of the plant at all. I appear to be the source of the plant being called the “short spined” T. peruvianus as I had maintained the original name and simple added on the “short spined” moniker to differentiate it from the plant commonly understood at that time to be T. peruvianus, this being the long spined T. peruvianus KK242 that was prevalent at the time (before Knize shipments seem to have increased). The KK242 seed was pretty much all that seemed available through both ethnobotanical suppliers and Mesa Garden at that time. This KK242 was not like other versions of the plant you got from Knize, but are the ones that are quite identical to the T. peruvianus varieties under various names, including 338, Cuzco, Blue Form, and Ancash. Personally I haven’t gained anything at all that shows plants like these actually coming from the region of Matucana, the location of the original description of the plant. It is interesting to note though that the T. cuzcoensis plant photos in your most recent publication are quite similar if not identical to these first KK242 (338, Cuzco, Blue Form, & Ancash).

Anyhow, back on track. I’ve never really argued that the “short spined T. peruvianus” were T. peruvianus, and in my own work I think you will see I wonder quite a bit about the plants true place within Trichocereus. The following is in full what is in my “Sacramental and Medicinal Cacti.” I know you have made comments about the vascular core being quite thick in the CC plants, something that contradicts my comments, but if you take a cut from the CC plant from a newer section the core is rather thin as opposed to more mature weight bearing sections further down which, as is observable, are rather thick to say the least, and require quite a bit of sawing to get through. The comments upon it weakness and breakability came from CC which indicated that it was very difficult to ship as tall plants due to the propensity to bend and break, presumably at heights where the core hadn’t yet thickened as much as possible. Even strong wind was described as causing breaking.

(From Sacramental and Medicinal Cacti by Michael S. Smith – all rights reserved)

Trichocereus peruvianus (short spine)

At first sight the short spined T. peruvianus can easily be mistaken for T. pachanoi, but there are obvious differences that can help others recognize if they have this plant in their collection. It is likely that this plant is commonly mislabeled as T. pachanoi, but it does appear to have many more morphology similarities to T. peruvianus than to T. pachanoi.

The short spined T. peruvianus reaches a diameter of 4-5” when grown in the southern U.S., exceeding that of T. pachanoi grown under identical conditions. It has one to seven reddish-brown spines up to 7 mm in length that fade to tan with age and are slightly finer than those on T. pachanoi. The reddish portion of the spine is most noticeable at the spine base. Though bearing up to seven spines per areole, three are typically the most visible, the longest being the bottom-most spine. I have noticed that on occasion this longer spine is the only one present on the older sections of the plant; the shorter ones having fallen off while the new growth continues to produce three to seven spines.

The areoles are similar in size to T. pachanoi, sometimes smaller, and are slightly off-white in color and not at all woolly. This is quite unlike the large wooly areoles typical reported of the standard T. peruvianus. The areoles of the short spined T. peruvianus appear to be somewhat vertically closer than those on T. pachanoi and have a noticeable V-notch or mark above them that can become horizontal if the stock is bloated and stretched.

The external bluish frosting (glaucescence) is minimal, being less than T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus, and is most persistent on the new growth. The outer flesh has a waxy smooth texture with a dark green color while the inner meat lacks the viscous nature of T. pachanoi.

While often becoming a towering columnar the limbs are weaker than T. pachanoi and have a tendency to break under stress due to a weak central vascular bundle or core. This is somewhat similar to the standard T. peruvianus that can become slightly decumbent due to a weak core.

Growth rates of the short spined T. peruvianus are identical, if not slightly quicker, than T. pachanoi, while growth rates of the standard T. peruvianus are somewhat slower than T. pachanoi. In many cases it appears the short spined T. peruvianus is the only form of T. peruvianus recognized by some cultivators. This may account for some of the rumors claiming T. peruvianus grows quicker than T. pachanoi.

It does not appear that the short spined T. peruvianus has received any formal botanical documentation or description. A close examination of its flowers may prove the defining factor in determining whether or not it is a form of T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, a hybrid, or an independent and undescribed species.

Mesa Garden of Belen, New Mexico, has carried seed of T. peruvianus “small spine” from Huancabamba, Peru. It will be interesting to see how this plant develops over time. Presently the growth characteristics of the T. peruvianus “small spine” and the short spined T. peruvianus indicate that these two plants are the same species. Small spine plants grown from seed show a large amount of variability, often appearing much more similar to commonly available T. peruvianus that bear longer spines. The short spined plants are much more consistent in their appearance, quite likely due to the short spined T. peruvianus being a widely propagated clone rather than seed grown.

There is a monstrose form of the commonly available short spined T. peruvianus that alternates from normal to monstrose growth. Seasonal and stressing factors seem to account for the changing of the plant back and forth between normal and monstrose growth.

Due to spine and areole characteristics, I personally believe some of the commonly available crested and monstrose forms of T. pachanoi may rather be forms of the short spined T. peruvianus.

Mescaline (confirmed through human bioassay)

So in the end there really isn’t any justification for it being called T. peruvianus at all besides the fact that that was the name it came with. But like you I also keep given names attached to it unless it is so obviously another common and recognizable species. But from my perspective I am not inclined to think the plant as closely related to the T. pachanoi Backeberg clone as simple spine length and first appearences might suggest. Diameter, spine color, number, and length also seem different than the Backeberg, as well as it having more rounded ribs as well as quite prominent “horizontal depressions” above the areole.

Archaea seems to be onto something with his comments that the Backeberg clone may not in fact be the T. pachanoi of Britton & Rose, and that the plants similar to the “short spined T. peruvianus” are in fact the T. pachanoi of B&R. I am certainly curious if plants somewhat more like the “short spined T. peruvianus” are the ones that run throughout the Andes rather than the Backeberg clone. If that is the case then what is the range of the Backeberg clone that was collected by Backeberg at Chanchan, and is it as prevalent throughout the Andes as forms similar to the “short spined T. peruvianus.

Archaea, I appreciate your comments made earlier and look forward to any further evidentiary presentation regarding the traditional ceremonial use of T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola, archeological support, and information suggesting Bolivia as the origins of the “San Pedro” Cult. Unfortunately I need more than what you have offered to believe similarly. It could just be me.

And now I really wish some other cactus freaks would stick their necks out and say a word or two as Archaea and me are certainly missing something that others might offer insight on. Don’t cha think?

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now I really wish some other cactus freaks would stick their necks out and say a word or two as Archaea and me are certainly missing something that others might offer insight on. Don’t cha think?

I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a great topic. I have some pups of the ecuador plants growing under someone else's care and I just got to see these plants. I will post photos early next week when I am able to get them to a reasonable size. In short the t. peruvians short spined description above seems to match very well. The new growth does not display the deep horizontal creases or corncob like appearance of the stock or the older growth. The spines clearly change color from being yellowish and more red at the base to being a sort of greyish color. The oldest spines are long, the midsection on one plant is nearly spineless and the new spines are shorter. The spines within one areole are different lenghts with the lower typically longer. There is fuzz in the areoles but it is short. I am not sure if that counts as wooly.

Referring back to the two links in post #16 the cacti in the first link look very much like what I was seeing in the area. If you look closely you can see branches in various conditions. Some have the distinct corncob look and others have the very deep creases. Others have a more classic pach look. The photos I will post will reveal that these plants appearance changes dramatically with growing conditions. While my plants don't display the most severe deeply creased look, the transplanted stock sections I had photos of at first complete the data. I postulate that if the B&R plants were found in an area with a climate that was predominately the "deep crease causing" climate, then the same plant could look very different in another area and still be the same plant. As for the Plowman specimen in the second link on that page, I associate that with the ceremonial cactus of the native andean peoples. This association comes from seeing detailed pre-columbian art depicting cacti that look essentially exactly like the cactus in that photo. I have yet to do an internet search to see if I can find images of such art to post. If the plowman specimen is a distinct variety I would be inclined to consider it the true san pedro of ceremonial use. Does anyone know of plowman cuttings available for sale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautiful specimens

Send me a cutting when theyre bigger, we're not too far from eachother :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out this cactus i found on Karl Knize's website. He labaled ita short spined trichocereus peruvianus kk242.

post-1289-1133747820_thumb.jpg

He says this plant was collected in central Peru.

post-1289-1133747820_thumb.jpg

post-1289-1133747820_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andean dreamer, your plants is an excellent example of the effect environment can have on growth. Your plants when in Ecuador looks like nothing else out there, but when you have taken it to a different environment it grows quite identically to the "short spined T. peruvianus" (T. pachanoi Britton & Rose?).

Nate, the plant in the photo you posted is also interesting and probably along the same lines in regards to its ID. One of the most interesting things about this plant is that it has the regular 3 spined growth formation on the new areoles which is the same as the "short spined T. peruvianus." I bet that should I grow this plant in my collection it would turn out quite identical to the “short spined T. peruvianus” I have.

This plant seems to have quite a large range, from Ecuador through central Peru and Matucana, and apparently down into Chile as a photo I recently posted might indicate. Such a range is no doubt in my opinion due to humans and its original range unknown (if even it is a natural plant and not a "cultigen" as held by Archaea). I have seen pictures of this plant growing in Matucana, but I have yet to see the long spined form of the standard cultivated T. peruvianus KK242 (T. cuzcoensis?) growing in that area. I suspect that there was a mistake made many years ago that lead to the inaccurate placement of "KK242" onto this spiny form and that the name stuck and continues today even though there appears to be no representation of it in the Matucana area.

I do though think this shorter spined form of "T. peruvianus" that is in the Knize photo is, 1) the same general plant as the "T. peruvianus small spine" (Mesa Garden) and "short spined T. peruvianus" (CC/CCC) and 2) is closer in relation to the T. peruvianus that has been sold by IcarosDNA and which comes from the Matucana area rather than it being closer in relation to the standard T. pachanoi (Backeberg) that we all know and love. I am actually starting to think that the Backeberg clone, though described as coming from Chanchan, Ecuador, by Backeberg is a likely transplant to that area, this even though I have been unable to locate a Chanchan, Ecuador, while being able to locate a Chan Chan in northern Peru above Trujillo, Peru. Chan Chan is a pre-Inca archeological site, while Trujillo appears to have quite a prominent place in the shamanic sale of Trichocereus. That the areas around Trujillo might have had others being in other forms of Trichocereus wouldn’t surprise me.

Flower hair color is something I have briefly looked at recently, with the standard Backeberg T. pachanoi having whitish hair that is quite thick (similar to T. bridgesii), while the short spined T. peruvianus forms, under that name, and under the name T. pachanoi, have a much lighter coating of dark hairs. Other plants that also have a lighter coating of dark hair are the Juul's Giant and the IcararosDNA T. peruvianus. Interestingly enough, the size of the “short spined T. peruvianus” forms, the Juul's and the Icaros plant, all are plants that reach a larger diameter than normal Backeberg T. pachanoi. This while the standard T. pachanoi stay a thinner diameter, similar to T. bridgesii.

Now I'm not saying that the Backeberg T. pachanoi is more in relation to T. bridgesii, but I can't help but really wonder about the provenance of the plant and if when collected by Backeberg (to latter become the "Backeberg clone") it was not a plant that held a prominent range, but rather was simply a plant gathered together in a domesticated collection. And to tell you the truth, when I look at T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola, both from Bolivia, I see more similarities of the Backeberg clone T. pachanoi to these than to the plants of central and northern Peru.

Archaea, you following? You guys keeping up with me?

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta digest it all and then think on it.

Good stuff though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense to me Mike. I am no expert, but the errors of the fool often speak volumes to the nature of the truth. I tend to get Juuls, Short Spine peru (mature) and immature icaro macrogonoids with shorter spines confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do my best to make sense, I'm just happy when others seem to think I am. I usually remember the fact that I am nothing but a hobbiest making observations. I'm no "expert" myself, but someone once told me that an expert isn't one who is "trained" per se, but one who seems to know what they are talking about.

Nate, I just realized when I went to save that Knize photo you posted that the photo is actually one of Trout's. He has many other photos of similar plants from the Matucana region at http://www.troutsnotes.com.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rio Bambo is the capital of Chimborazo province and in basically at the geographic center of Ecuador and approximatley 120 km north of the B&R T. pachanoi of Cuenca.

latitude 01 37S

longitude 078 40W

Here is the "short spined T. peruvianus." Do the mature plants in Ecuador look at all like this? I noticed the areoles on this plant compared to yours appear to be further apart.

post-6263-1251969824_thumb.jpg

More later.

~Michael~

hi m s smith,after seeing the above pic of your short spined peru, i recognised it as the pic used when i recently purchased some seed advertised as t.scopulicola from the nz cactus and succulent society. see pic here

post-6263-1251969806_thumb.jpg

have you by any chance sold some seed to someone in nz of this short spine peruvian?

thanks

san p

post-6263-1251969806_thumb.jpg

post-6263-1251969824_thumb.jpg

post-6263-1251969806_thumb.jpg

post-6263-1251969824_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AD: Could you please take bigger photos?

How does it compare to these two plants?

The first photo doesn't really show it, but when viewed in entirety it has very defined depressions.

The second is a different more gloucous plant, but again has the deep depressions, especially on young growth. After looking at your second lot of pics, the dual spine makes it look very similar to this one

_MG_2901.jpg

_MG_0198.jpg

Edited by bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a very nice plant and fits into plants I have sort of accounted for as having somewhat intermediary (hybrid) aspects between T. pachanoi of Ecuador and the T. peruvianus (T. macrogonus) of central Peru, and which I have long referred to as "short spined T. peruvianus" due to the fact that I was the one who introduced the plant to the ethnobotanical community (by pointing out its differences from standard T. pachanoi rather than spreading the plant myself) and the plant was originally passed on to me simply as T. peruvianus. I made the addition of "short spined" myself to differentiate the plant from the commonly cultivated T. peruvianus, a plant known to have longer spines, this no matter which plant in the confusing mess we may now consider T. peruvianus, the "T. peruvianus/macrogonus" of the Matucana region, or the T. peruvianus KK242 (T. cuzcoensis?) which matches T. cuzcoensis, and has yet to be found in Matucana even thoguh it was originally described from that region. As both Archaea and I are well aware, there were numerous traditional cultures in this section of the Andes between these two areas, and that plants might have been carried back and forth and interbreed is likely.

Archaea and I differ in regards to which plant in collections today meets the Britton & Rose descriptions of T. pachanoi. I hold that the common T. pachanoi in collections today is that which was described by B&R. Archaea holds the opinion that the plant traditionally regarded as the "short spined T. peruvianus" is the original B&R T. pachanoi. Though Archaea holds the "short spined" plants generally as fitting the B&R description, an observation of the "short spined" plants (which range apparently from Ecuador to central Peru) will show that the spines are longer (5 cm+)and a more horn color than those described by B&R for T. pachanoi. These longer spines develope on more mature sections quite consistently and the red/horn color is on the new spines, this just as much as the "dark yellow to brown" spines decribed by B&R are also only on the new formed spines.

So.... Trichocereus "short-spined" peruvianus = T. pachanoi (True Form).

Is the above statement correct? Or do some people at least believe it to be correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corner of DELETED DUE TO FACEBOOK POSTING OF THIS INFO streets in ******** Ecuador will show a great example of the type of pachanoi that the original poster is mentioning. There are even some branches that have gone fully crested. Google maps search *************  Riobamba Ecuador, then go to street view. Make sure to travel around the entire block as several of the larger groupings of this marvelous pachanoi are over 7 meters tall and surround the entire property. Many other specimens throughout the town but these are some of the largest and densely grouped I could find. Hope you enjoy them as much as I did, would really love to travel there someday and see them in person! 

Edited by Chilito
owner of plants requested anonymity
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ that's awesome google street-view-spying.

 

the rest of this thread looks corroboree old skool interesting but i don't have time to read it right now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I found. Very interesting specimens, I wonder if they get pulled down if they peek over that wall

 

IaKryVS.png

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

×