What is your opinion on "Shorted Spined" Peruvianus?

[Teotzlcoatl]

See Nexus thread for Info

To me a short-spined peruvianus is just a pachanoi with peruvianus-like traits.

What do y'all think?

[Teotzlcoatl]

More importantly... what does Mr.Trout think?

Care to comment Mr. Trout?

[Teotzlcoatl]

Discussion between me and a friend-

FaR FrOM HeRe(5:46:46 PM): what is your take on short spined peruvianus?

drift(5:51:27 PM): i think its garbage

drift(5:51:33 PM): short spined peruvianus is usually real deal pedro to mne

FaR FrOM HeRe(5:53:24 PM): exactly dude

FaR FrOM HeRe(5:53:32 PM): i always aruge with this kid

FaR FrOM HeRe(5:53:52 PM): and he will not answer the question- "what is the difference between pachanoi and peruvianus if it isnt the short spines"

FaR FrOM HeRe(5:53:56 PM): he cant answer it

FaR FrOM HeRe(5:54:01 PM): and just ignores the question

drift(5:54:04 PM): yeah

drift(5:54:07 PM): its a marketing gimmick

drift(5:54:18 PM): peruvian torch sounds more exotic and in demand than pedro

FaR FrOM HeRe(5:54:18 PM): well this guy doesnt sell stuff hes just a jackass

drift(5:54:30 PM): instead of regular pedro, people had to say it was a mutant peruvianus to make $$$

FaR FrOM HeRe(5:54:34 PM): and there is that claim that its 10x more potent, which is bullshit

drift(5:54:45 PM): ya

drift(5:58:05 PM): 10x more potent is vendor bullshit

FaR FrOM HeRe(5:59:36 PM): well its on erowid

FaR FrOM HeRe(5:59:40 PM): but its def. bullshit

FaR FrOM HeRe(5:59:46 PM): that claim is everywhere actually

drift(6:00:01 PM): ah

drift(6:00:14 PM): something like that can start as an innocent vendor spicing up his sales and turn into common belief

drift (6:00:16 PM): unfortunately

drift (6:00:20 PM): trichs are so surrounded by myths

FaR FrOM HeRe (6:00:33 PM): ya for real

drift019 (6:00:35 PM): it'd be nice to get someone to do some serious studies on them, especially on alk content

FaR FrOM HeRe (6:02:28 PM): ya def.

FaR FrOM HeRe(6:02:39 PM): that is one of the thigns that dude claims to make his pachanoi peruvianus

FaR FrOM HeRe(6:02:41 PM): or w/e

Edited September 30, 2009 by Teotzlcoatl

[san p]

hi teotz try here. http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...&hl=society

[paradox]

i reckon it's a cactus for sure

[Teotzlcoatl]

I'd really like Archaea to comment about the "Short-spined" peruvianus as well.

i reckon it's a cactus for sure

Is that joke?

Edited October 1, 2009 by Teotzlcoatl

[Teotzlcoatl]

So what is the consensus on "short-spined peruvianus"?

Is it just a form of T. pachanoi like I assume?

[bℓσωηG]

 

either way im crossing this with peruvianus not pach

Edited November 10, 2009 by blowng

[Teotzlcoatl]

Well that doesn't answer my question...

[bℓσωηG]

yeah sorry i would also like to know whats up with this variety, is it? or aint it? i like the look of peruvianus more than pachanoi ....so is this a hybrid between the two ?

[Teotzlcoatl]

No idea, start your own thread.

Can anybody comment on the "Short-Spined Peruvianus"?

[san p]

No idea, start your own thread.

Can anybody comment on the "Short-Spined Peruvianus"?

hi teotz,that thread i linked at the top of the page has several pages of discussion between ms smith,trout and Archaea on this topic.

[PD.]

FFs, i just typed out a responce to this and it just disappeared....

Anyways, From my memory it was Mr Smith that coined the term short spined peruvi and after i read thru the nook thread phlux from nexus directed ppl to read i found what i and i assume teotz is lookin for.........

Below is the so-called "short spined T. peruvianus." This name appear to be completely of my own doing when many years ago it was sent to me simply as a “T. peruvianus” and I added the "short spined" moniker to differentiate it from the then common long spined form of T. peruvianus that I have more recently suspected is T. cuzcoensis. This particular "short spined T. peruvianus" is clearly a form of T. pachanoi.

I should note again that the “short spined T. peruvianus” is better understood as a T. pachanoi and not a T. peruvianus.

above quotes from Mr Smith.

FWIW, i consider the so called "short spined peruvi" to be a pachanoid but whatever ppl label it in their garden is up to them.

I mean here you can only really take mikes word for it, if you had been told otherwise by a different well read collector what would you think teotz? Do you consider this plant to be a pachanoi due to what you have been told on internet forums and if not, how did you come to the conclusion it is pachanoi, what traits does this plant have that indicates as such in your opinion?

[Teotzlcoatl]

phlux is the whole reason I made this thread

I also think it's T. pachanoi, thanks for your opinion.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Teotzlcoatl

[PD.]

phlux is the whole reason I made this thread

Hmmmm, i never would have guessed that!

Well that doesn't answer my question...

Are you going to answer my questions like you wanted ppl to do for you or did you make this thread and keep it going till you got the answer you were looking for just so you could show phlux and everyone at nexus??? You wanted a discussion............

Like i said, imo, it is up to the person who owns the plant to call it as they wish, i mean i could call my lophs chuzzwozzas if i wanted to and argue that shit till im blue in the face, they my chuzzwozzas and from now on around here thats what they are called ok! I had an ancient parchment that clearly stated the word chuzzwozza with a picture aswell but i lost it when i was riding a galapagos tortoise down a mine shaft to pick strawberries out of earthworms arseholes but no shit man, chuzzwozzas is the real name of them things. Have you got a TRUE furry chuzzwozza teotz?

[Teotzlcoatl]

if you had been told otherwise by a different well read collector what would you think teotz?

I still think that the "short-spined peruvianus" is a pachanoi probably.

Do you consider this plant to be a pachanoi due to what you have been told on internet forums and if not, how did you come to the conclusion it is pachanoi, what traits does this plant have that indicates as such in your opinion?

From everything I have read online and in books, yes.

Thanks for your time PD.

[bit]

i reckon it's a cactus for sure

x2. This has been discussed to death before.

[M S Smith]

See my comments here in post #9 from two years ago.

Most of what people call the "short spined T. peruvianus" are any of the many variable T. pachanoi, and not the strict clone of the plant to which I first applied the name, the reasons of which I explain in the link.

~Michael~

Edited November 11, 2009 by M S Smith

[C_T]

Is there a proper place you can send a slice to get say, dna analysed?

It seems to me this is the only way to know for real wtf is going on with the species. No?

[ENtiTY]

Is there a proper place you can send a slice to get say, dna analysed?

A study based on data from an extensive series of DNA comparisons across all Tricho species would be a very very enlightening read. Expensive but enlightening. A conclusive understanding would be the prize in it all. Finally see the lay of the land in Tricho world.

EDIT: Typos

Edited November 11, 2009 by Harry

[C_T]

Need someone who works in DNA, with the equipment accessible, who also is into Cacti to take up the challenge on weekends when the office is empty...

[M S Smith]

I'm with Harry in that "an extensive series of DNA comparisons across all Tricho species would be a very very enlightening." I'm not convinced that DNA analysis is even worth the time or the expense regarding a T. pachanoi form when it is fairly obvious that there is a general enough similarity between the particular "clone" called the "short spine T. pachanoi", which is quite clearly close enough in form and flower to other Ecuadorian and Peruvian T. pachanoi to leave little doubt that it is a T. pachanoi. I'm not even convinced that there being no time or monetary expense to the project there would be a "standard" T. pachanoi from which to judge all others considering there are so many obvious variations in the overall species to begin with. Even if you could find the actual plant from which Britton and Rose made their original "species nova" the DNA work will not prove much if comparing within the species as opposed to comparing the relationship of T. pachanoi to other obviously different species. If you would like to run T. pachanoi against multiple other obvious species then you can certainly get a picture of which of these multiple species is closest in relationship to T. pachanoi's overall DNA picture, but what use is DNA analysis of multiple plants which are obviously T. pachanoi?

~Michael~

[Teotzlcoatl]

Thank you for your comment Mr.Smith.

Trichocereus "short-spined peruvianus" = Trichocereus pachanoi (True form from Equator and Peru)... correct me if I'm wrong.

I would love to see DNA analysis done for the entire Trichocereus genus, but I can't see that happening anytime soon unless we got some serious private funding.

[M S Smith]

Thank you for your comment Mr.Smith.

Trichocereus "short-spined peruvianus" = Trichocereus pachanoi (True form from Equator and Peru)... correct me if I'm wrong.

"True form" only insofar as it is not the so-called Backeberg clone/predominant cultivar.

The DNA test I want is on three plants; proper T. pachanoi, the PC plant, and T. bridgesii. I'd want this to see if the PC plant bears a closer relationship to T. bridgesii, as I suspect, than to T. pachanoi.

~Michael~

[Teotzlcoatl]

Alright, thanks, I apperciate your input Mr.Smith.