Interesting read on trichocereus and hybrids
Posted 02 November 2006 - 01:55 PM
concerning some ‘pachanoid’ Trichocerei:
Nathaniel L. BRITTON & Joseph N. ROSE 1920 published
the first taxonomic descriptions for a number of Trichocerei
species. Their key shows T. bridgesii, T. pachanoi, T.
macrogonus and T. peruvianus to be roughly similar plants
physically. As mentioned, variants exist for all of these,
keeping identification interesting.
All are said to be branched with stout joints and ribs
between 4 and 9 in number, with slender spines between 1
and 7 cm long. Differences were defined in terms of such
simple physical features and color descriptive terms.
Interestingly, if examining a large enough number of
specimens, or often even branches on a large adult, one can
find points in spination, rib numbers or the published floristic
descriptions, which can be applied so that the odd example
from any of these 4 will fit into each other’s description.
It is apparent from observations over the years that
hybridization has most probably occurred at multiple points
in cultivation and in the wild, that there is substantially more
variety than indicated and that these species are all highly
variable & probably intergrade; intermediate forms do exist
for many and an almost grex-like wealth of intermediates
exist for pachanoi and peruvianus. We are perhaps seeing
speciation in process but it is arbitrary to say pachanoi and
peruvianus are one species based on their flowers but not
include bridgesii, pallarensis, tarmaensis, puquiensis and
several others. If the floristic differences ARE adequate for
dividing bridgesii from the rest then peruvianus itself would
LARGELY need to be split from pachanoi and what is
presently known as peruvianus would have to be split up
further into at least several species.
Whether a meaningful taxonomic key can ever be generated
for the pachanoid-peruvianoid-bridgesioids remains to be
seen. Without some type of adequate means for recognizing
what are hybrids, success seems doubtful.
- shiitakegrower likes this
Posted 02 November 2006 - 02:10 PM
This thread began in T.pach Longspine at:
The quotes are comments and questions posed there by Sunchild. I though I would separate it from the other thread as this becomes a very broad discussion on many issues.
<!--QuoteEBegin--> I am curious, what constitutes the standard pachanoi?
I know you can gather from my photos what I consider T. pachanoi. Pictures will follow.
<!--QuoteEBegin-->I wonder was KK the source of the SS pachanoi seed? Or the MG seeds? If so then we can throw their ID out the window so to speak.
That is a very good question indeed. I would assume that they were produced in-house by Ben. I think provenance quite important though, particularly what is the mother plants description (is it like the Backeberg?), and what is the father plant? Seeing that T. pachanoi, like other Trichocereus/Echinopsis, is not self-fertile, you could assume that should it be crossed with another Backeberg clone it would not produce seed readily if it is of a single genetic clone. Therefore another T. pachanoi would be needed. Now that being the case I am also curious if in the production of the seed care is being taken to prevent the fertilization of the mother T. pachanoi by another blooming Trichocereus, or if care is being taken to be sure that it is only crossed with another T. pachanoi of the proper traits.
<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some people who have studied the cacti in their native ranges for years feel that T peruvianus and T pachanoi are a single species, They assert this as that every possible intermediate for the traits of both has been observed.
This may certainly be the case, but it doesn't mean that both are in fact the same species rather than the bringing together and mongrelization by humans of what were initially two distinct species of their own divided and independent growth ranges. Certainly if valuable ethnobotanical species are carried out of their native habitat, as they no doubt were, they may have a chance to cross with other species and produce â€œevery possible intermediate,â€ but again this doesn't mean that T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus initially lacked their own independent development in their own distinct habitat prior to the intermixing caused by humans. I hold that though of a common ancestor the population divided, evolved in their own niche and took on their own traits and features, and then with mankind they were brought back together to hybridize, and thereby produce the â€œintermediates.â€ That intermediates exist doesn't mean they should be considered the same species, only that the intermediates came to be through the interventions of humans.
<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am no expert myself and don't want to take a stand but I wonder. I have had many classes in botany and one lovely one in vascular plant taxonomy that cause me to be rather suspicious of the claims of species in cacti that have been cultivated for millennia like Opuntia. To me it is like calling broccoli and cauliflower a different species, plants that have been cultivated for about a few hundred years. The cacti have been cultivated over 10 times as long.
Cultivation as the human intervention of plant growth through intentional hybridization is different than what likely happened with the Trichocereus. I don't have any information whatsoever to suggest that Trichocereus were intentionally breed through the selective crossing of plants chosen for their particular traits. This seems backed up by the lack of any suggestion that Andean cultures raised cacti from seed. Instead it looks more like a selected species was found desirable and was therefore carried abroad as clippings which would then have the ability to impact those plants into whose range it was carried. The unintentional crosses then deposited seed which grew unaided, but then may have been cut and carried elsewhere for planting and continuing the cycles of the degradation of the â€œpureâ€ species that originally developed free of related species.
Granted in the comments you provide from Backeberg above he does mention the use of T.pachanoi as â€œhedge seedlingsâ€ but this doesn't automatically refer to the grow of these intentionally from seed (and with aforethought to selective crossing of parent plants for desirable traits), but may possibly refer to the of planting naturally sprouted seedlings or small clipping as a â€œhedgeâ€ that is intentionally kept small to make a natural barrier. I don't think the important word here is â€œseedlings,â€ but rather hedge. That â€œferalâ€ or â€œwild populationsâ€ is not mentioned in the context of it as a â€œhedge,â€ such references are mentioned both before and after these comments with the terms â€œcultivated,â€ and â€œornamental,â€ terms which say nothing but that it is planted there for a purpose. Certainly to think that because he doesn't say â€œferalâ€ or â€œwildâ€ means that the inhabitants are selectively growing seedling of plants they intentionally crossed is stretching the words, or lack thereof, to an unacceptable degree.
Such indefinite life spans similar to Trichocerus are not possible in the Brassica, and therefore selected Brassica plants would need to be eventually collected and crossed to produce plants of desired traits, and then crossed again and again. I don't think humans had anything to do with the intentional production of Trichocereus cultivars in a manner similar to Brassica, partially due to it being unnecessary for what their intent with the plant was. Trichocereus were ceremonial plants, and the consideration by the Andean cultures of mescaline as a natural property (rather than one of spirit), that could be increased through intention cross-breeding, seems quite preposterous.
Cultivation and intentional cross hybridization are two completely different subjects.
<!--QuoteEBegin-->A typically species definition in biology means that the involved species will not produce fertile offspring, but the cacti in general break some rules here. Though there are genetic specifics to the BTC clade itself that means that you cannot breed these cacti and produce fertile offspring with other clades.
This is incorrect; species (within a particular genus) do maintain the ability to interbreed. They form and maintain species distinction by their independent development from other populations arising from their common ancestor. For example; a progenitor species produced (to give an origin) the first ancestor of all Mammillaria, this Mammillaria grows within a particular valley and hasn't escaped this niche. It develop here for a few hundred years adapting to its environment, and then one day a creature who is new to the region (possibly being pushed out by ecological or predatory concerns) comes in and somehow carries either seeds or plants out into the surrounding valleys. There the transplants grow and have different stressors or promoters to contend with (possibly new light patterns, weather, elevation, vectors of pollination, etc.) and so they carve out new survival techniques.
So now the original Mammillaria continues its own development independent of the other, and the others carry on their development free of the first and the others in different valleys. So they all are considered of the same genus, but different species due to mankind's application of species classification. Now certainly they could all continue to be considered the same species if you would like, but generally they are not described so because they have developed their own traits independent of the others, but still maintain the ability to interbreed. It is only when they no longer interbreed are they usually considered different taxa. But even this isn't always so clear cut as many taxa can be crossed. This of course brings into question taxon divisions. But these divisions are certainly more valuable than the species classification.
Now getting back to speciation. T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus in all likelihood had developed their own traits independent of each other (having done so prior to human intervention), and therefore are deserving of their own species classification. It wasn't until latter that mankind brought the independent species back together to create what would appear to be â€œintermediates.â€ But the presence of intermediates does nothing to deny the presence of the original and independent species that gave origins to them through the interventions of mankind. We may now be seeing the â€œdespeciesificationâ€ of T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus due to humans! And in all likelihood we will not see the development of these mixes into a new species as long as mankind prevents the division of the plant naturally as had originally occurred to create the species in the first place. We will continue to see hybrid natures as long as we prevent their natural selective processes!
<!--QuoteEBegin-->I should mention that my T pachanoi seedlings from MG seed have produced some plants not unlike these.
I of course am interested in seeing photos of your plants, but I suspect they are immature and therefore show the same sort of similarity common among most Peruvian Trichocereus when young.
<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have never seen T pachanoi grown from seed that breeds true to form, unlike bridgesii or scop. If anyone has pictures of T pach that is true from seed please post them. I would like to see a batch of them.
Again, provenance should be a large concern regarding all these seedlings on the grounds I have discussed above. T. scopulicola and T.bridgesii certainly do grow more to form when young, but these do appear to have a much clearer provenance, especially if the seed is coming from the natural habitat rather than collectors as I assume is the case with T. bridgesii and T. scopulicola and not the case with T. pachanoi.
<!--QuoteEBegin-->Keep in mind that these cacti are not self fertile.Sorry if my tone seems strange. I want to find out more about this pachanoi mystery. I almost think the species is a myth, and that what Backeberg introduced was itself a hybrid and not the real T pachanoi that was originally described.
T. pachanoi of the Britton & Rose variety is most likely a pure species as that which was collected in the Cuenca, Ecuador, also appears to be the Backeberg clone collected in the Chanchan valley of Ecudor (the specific location I can not find on my very detailed ITM map). This is also apparently the plant used in Huancabamba of northern Peru. Further support is that no other Trichocereus is known from this far north (indicative of pure speciation the results of division from others of the genus). The closest â€œspeciesâ€ after it is T. santaensis, a species which is over 300 miles south of Cuenca, and over 200 miles south of Huancabamba.
<!--QuoteBegin--><!--QuoteEBegin-->The first is allegedly T pachanoi from north Peru, the last two were from Ecuador, where T pachanoi is said to be possibly native.
Absolutely no description of plants fitting the Ecuador and North Peru â€œT. pachanoiâ€ have been described as coming from those areas. These two are the only exception, and in name only. If they come from the region they are introduced as far as I can tell. But I suspect Knize played a hand in these names and therefore they should be highly suspect as naturalized populations. Their differences from the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and north Peru as decribed by B&R and Backeberg are incredibly great.
<!--QuoteEBegin-->That is the info for initial description of the species, I have not read it for years though. Here is Backeberg's description, note that he is wrong about spines being absent, perhaps he is wrong about other aspects as well. He introduced the Backeberg clone in 1931.
In Backeberg's Cactus Lexicon (1976) he does note that the spines are â€œmostly completely absent on cultivated plants,â€ but immediately prior to this he mentions their length. If he considered their length of 2 cm a common feature, which may only be on older mature sections (longer spines up to 4 cm being common only on mature sections of the â€œshort spined T. peruvianus) then his consideration that such longer spines are â€œmostly completely absent on cultivated plantsâ€ isn't necessarily incorrect.
Now to the real meat, the â€œdepressionâ€:
Britton & Rose state that there is a â€œdeep horizontal depression above the areoleâ€ of T. pachanoi. Backeberg (in the official English translation of the Cactus Lexicon by Lois Glass) it is stated that T. pachanoi has a â€œtransverse depression over the areole.â€ Now this can easily be confused as indicative of the V-notch on many plants, particularly the â€œshort spined T. peruvianus.â€ Interestingly enough the standard T. pachanoi in collection does have a depression above the areole, of which I usually describe as being a raised tubercle (a slightly protruding lump) below the areole. Many plants don't show this in cultivation to an extreme degree, but on very large plants which are capable of gaining their optimal diameter do have such â€œdepressions.â€ These â€œtransverse depressionsâ€ appear to be fully synonymous with Backeberg's use of â€œtransverse furrowsâ€ for T. puquiensis. In the Cactus Lexicon, and lying between the listings for T. pachanoi and T. puquiensis is the listing for T. peruvianus. In this listing the terminology is different. Backeburg describes the presence of a â€œV-shaped notch over the areole.â€ There is no indication that the â€œtransverse depression/furrowâ€ is the same as the V-shaped notch. Now certainly we see very light V-notches on some T. pachanoi, but it is not a prevalent or apparently noteworthy feature of T. pachanoi, while it is on T. peruvianus. Interestingly enough I wouldn't consider a V-notch a prevalent feature of the â€œT.peruvianus KK242â€ which I have recently outlined as being T. cuzcoensis (Backberg doesn't list a depression or a V-notch on this species).
Backeberg's German Die Cactaceae (1959) does show a T. peruvianus photo which lacks any appearance to the KK242 of common cultivation, nor does it look at all like a T. pachanoi. What it most resembles is the plant I refer to as the â€œshort spined T. peruvianus.â€ Its description regarding spination is quite dead on to mature short spined T. peruvianus: to 20 cm diameter, bluish-green frosted, 6-8 broadly rounded ribs with the V-shaped notch, 6-8 radial spines to 1 cm, â€œmostlyâ€ 1 central spine to 4 cm (my longest measures 3.5 cm), honey colored spines with a darker base. He describes it as coming from near and above Matucana. Interestingly enough Jorge, who recently posed with just such a plant with the pictures having been posted in this forum, is said to have collected this plant from La Oroya, just 50 miles north East of Matucana! As far as I can tell the short spined T. peruvianus is the original T. peruvianus, and is in all likelihood a natural variation of the longer spined â€œT. peruvianusâ€ of IcarosDNA fame which I believe is the T. mcrogonus of Backeberg which he describes as having 6-9 radial spines to 2 cm long and with 1-3 central spines that are â€œrather stouter and longer,â€ â€œall horn-colored to brown, later blackish or dark grey or grayish-brown.â€ The origins are unknown to Backeberg, as to all others, but I suggest that this is T. macrogonus is the IcarosDNA â€œT. peruvianusâ€ of Matucana, and that the photos I have placed in this forum under the title â€œT. macrogonus (?)â€ are of the Backeberg T. macrogonus.
But now let me point out one concerning feature of how the commonly cultivated Backeberg clone of T. pachanoi differs from the descriptions in both Britton & Rose and Backeberg: both describe the ovary and flower respectively as bearing black hairs. What is obvious from most cultivated material is that it has white/grey hair. Everything else but this fits, and I cannot account for it unless there are some differences the natural habitat has upon the color of these hairs.
Pictures to follow.
Posted 02 November 2006 - 02:11 PM
Notice the way the areoles are set up. When grown in optimal conditions the "depression" between the areoles becomes much more pronounced.
Posted 02 November 2006 - 02:12 PM
Posted 02 November 2006 - 02:14 PM
Posted 02 November 2006 - 02:16 PM
It matches the IcarosDNA "T. peruvianus" from Matucana.
Posted 02 November 2006 - 03:15 PM
Posted 04 November 2006 - 12:05 PM
Those statements match my findings as well. I have a cactus shipped to me as T. Peruvianus, but I'm certain it is a mislabeled Cuzcoensis. Other research has indicated that the Cuzcoensis spines turn white with age, though they are dark like the T. Peruvianus on new growth (true T. Peruvianus spines stay darker in color). Further readings indicate that the Cuzcoensis contains only trace elements of the important alkaloids, making it a not interesting study as an entheogen. Indeed, my Cuzcoensis has no bitter taste whatsoever; my sample at least, is decidedly not active.
Pachanoi on the other hand are very easy to identify. They are the only ones where the aereoles are tilted so the spines grow upward a bit instead of straight outward. All Peruvianus and Cuzcoensis aereoles are pretty flat along the side of the cactus (they also have more spines per aereole, of course, whether it be the short spined Peruvianus or other).
[Photo on left = Cuzcoensis, new growth]
[Photo on right = Cuzcoensis, white spines]
Posted 04 November 2006 - 12:15 PM
"Here is the "short spined T. peruvianus" which appears to match best the T. peruvianus of Backeberg and which has the longer central spines on mature columns and can reach up to 4 cm. Notice the "V-shaped notch" as decribed on T. peruvianus by Backeberg.
Except the short spined Peruvianus is supposed to have 5 or more spines per aereole I believe (I have two different varieties sold to me as "short spined peruvianus" and they do). I've never seen one with only three spines, so I'd think that was something else because of that. Whatever it is its still a beauty and still most likely active though.
Posted 04 November 2006 - 12:37 PM
"Here is the plant I consider T. macrogonus as described by Backeberg.
It matches the IcarosDNA "T. peruvianus" from Matucana.
One more thing...
I think you're right about the Icaros cactus they call Peruvianus actually being Macrogonus. I've always been confused by their claims, but I think this clears it up.
I also wanted to add that humid environments will turn most columnar cactus blue (try putting one in a humidity tent). When I purchased my Cuzcoensis it was blue/green and looked pretty neat, but the blue has faded since then. Now you can see in the pictures that the flesh is totally green without variation. I think the seller may have wanted them to look more blue to help them pass as Peruvianus...
Posted 04 November 2006 - 12:58 PM
I am curious as to the species definition being used here.
To give some examples of species definitions I will provide the following quotes:
<!--QuoteEBegin--> biological species concept (BSC). This definition of "species" is based on species being reproductively isolated from each otherâ€¦
The phylogenetic species concept (PSC) says that diagnosable geographic forms of the same basic "kind" of bird should be treated as distinct species. This is because these forms have evolved separately, and have unique evolutionary histories.
If you use the BSC they must be the same species as that they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, however if you use the PSC they must be different species, however then we have the problem of the intermediates. These are not the only species definitions.
Posted 04 November 2006 - 01:04 PM
Sunchild, the BSC and the PSC do not appear to differ as they both are reliant on the separation of populations for the formation of separate species. The reproductively isolated of your comments regarding BSC don't differ from the evolved separately of the PSC comments.
<!--QuoteEBegin-->If you use the BSC they must be the same species as that they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, however if you use the PSC they must be different species, however then we have the problem of the intermediates.
As I recounted before, species should be able to interbreed, while taxa should not (though they do occasionally, especially in regards to the Cactaceae and this causes some difficulty in even the separation of such taxa as Turbinicarpus and Lophophora, certain species of which can interbreed). A new taxa (genus) forms when the one creature divides so far evolutionarily from its progenitor taxa that it can no longer interbreed with it. Turbinicarpus should only be considered a separate genus because it can't be crossed with other taxa, such as Lophophora. I would hold that many different taxa of cacti can cross intergenerically (cross-genera) because they are a relatively new development of the plant kingdom, having developed relatively recently, and following the division of the Americas from Pangaea, the super continent that existed before the development of the Cactaceae.
The following comments regard the description of species according to both Britton & Rose (The Cactaceae) and Backeberg (Cactus Lexicon). I personally find Backeberg the far better of the two works.
None of this discussion of the speciation or genera of Cactaceae is particularly clear, but that shouldn't effect our discussion to any great degree, as it is obvious from growth characteristics and habitats that the cacti under discussion (T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus [not the KK242], and even T. cuzcoensis), bear disparate characteristics and distinct growth ranges, i.e., reproductively isolated and evolved separately. Should they not have had these aspects, which are really one aspect said in two ways as far as I can tell, then they wouldn't have divided so far in appearance and characteristics as they would have continued to cross-fertilize and come to a homeostasis, which would then be called a single species.
As I said before, it does appear the T. pachanoi of Ecuador had been isolated in its development at one point as there is no great variability in the Trichocereus there, at least of the sort which we are referring to as intermediaries. There is it appears just T. pachanoi in Ecuador, and it is of a general characteristic. As you go south you have T. knuthianus (a species I overlooked above) and even further south T. santaensis, species closer no doubt in relation to T. pachanoi by growth habit and rib formation than others, but bearing quite dissimilar spination, having longer spines. But they too appears to have distinct populations of a single form of plant like with T. pachanoi in Ecuador. As you go father south towards La Oroya you hit the short spined T. peruvianus plant which in all honest appears to be the T. peruvianus of both B&R and Backeberg. Both B&R and Backeberg seem to be unaware of the location of T. macrogonus, and so maybe it should be left out of the discussion, though I have made my own speculative comments elsewhere.
Now we can get to an interesting place in which we might speculate that the so called Peruvian intermediaries are not natural intermediaries in the sense that we find in some species of larger cacti in southern Bolivia and Argentina (distinct species from a common progenitor which were after their differentiation, their speciation, brought back together in a place different from either of their parent species how this might happen is for another time). Rather the Peruvian intermediaries are pure species that have been â€œpollutedâ€ by the introduction of man of one particular species, T. pachanoi, a species brought south from Ecuador due to its singular effects when consumed.
Certainly the cultures resident in the Andes might have had a good grasp of plants, and found ways to move them towards the production of fruit mass and desirable traits, but a good question is how did this occur, and over what sort of time period. I doubt it was like modern scientist who can intentionally cross plants with their pollen. I suspect that the way they grew better and better corn, fruits, vegetables, etc., was rather through the selection of naturally occurring fruit which had features they found more desirous that that of the majority. They would then plant the seed to this desirable plant and it would have greater odds of producing similar fruit, the most desirous would be sown again, but I doubt they were crossing the plants with intention. I would of course be interested in if this could have possibly been the case, but I suspect the processes of creating the plant of greater desirability was through generations of selection, and not through intentional crosses (though this was happening, but not in the manner we are familiar with today).
Your contention that because a cactus fruit was found alongside cultivated peppers and beans points towards the cactus fruit being the product of intentional cultivation similar to the peppers and beans, is wanting. There are so many questions here, but let me ask a few. How was it confirmed to be a T. peruvianus? If it was a cultivar like peppers and beans then how was it properly identified? If it was properly identified by comparison to current T. peruvianus (which isn't a species from northern Peru) then how over 10,000 years did the current populations of T. peruvianus remain identical to that from 10,000 years ago, particularly if it was a cultivar? If it was a cultivar, like the pepper and bean which did not grow native, how did current stands of T. peruvianus (which was obviously used to identify this ancient seed) remain evolutionarily identical to it during 10,000 years of further existence outside of mans controlled cultivation? I'm sure I can come up with other questions, but I think that serves the purpose.
That T. peruvianus was found with peppers and beans does not indicated that the cache of material was for cultivation purposes, rather it can equally point towards the use of the natural fruit from natural populations as a food item, to make other items from such as a crude fermented beer, or even a bread-like product from the crushed seed, all of which occur with a number of Pachycereus or Carnegiea gigantea.
Your comments are highly speculative, and though possible, seem to fail to recognize many other issues that argue against it. I would of course love to hear from what book these ideas arise. Could you share it please?
Now I won't argue at all the cultivation of T. pachanoi, and possibly other species, but this is not to mean that their relationship with man was similar to man's relationship with fruits and vegetables. I would think certain clones of T. pachanoi, or other Trichocereus, might be found and kept alive through cuttings, as is a simply affair, but I don't see anything that points towards the selection of cacti of desirable traits being planted alongside other cacti of desirable traits, their crossing, the collection of seed, and the intentional spreading of the seed to produce offspring of greater desirability. Now certainly I haven't even said that was how more desirable fruits and vegetables occurred, but rather it occurred through a slow process of the planting of the seeds of a desirable fruit which showed greater chances of maintaining that trait in offspring. The offspring of even greater traits where selected and onward the improvement of the vegetable kingdom went. But cacti seem to be far removed from this quick cycle of generation and therefore not so easily susceptible to such human selection; particularly when the time needed for a plant to reach an age of both usable size (to test its value as a hallucinogen) and fruiting is so great. It all seems so improbable. Not impossible, but certainly not well supported. This is certainly not to underestimate the skill of the Andean people, but just brings into question the necessity if domesticating cacti, particularly for hallucinogenic purposes, which is obviously what you're proposing. I will continue to await any real evidence, outside of pure speculation, that these cultures grew cacti of selected traits, which they intentionally crossed, with the intention of their use as sacraments.
There certainly does appear to be much confusion by most of us regarding what is the proper plant according to the descriptions offered by primarily Britton & Rose and Backeberg, but this does eliminate the species themselves as being distinct. I personally am inclined toward believing that the majority of variation in the species has occurred in the last 100-150 years (similar to dog breeds) and primarily among the diffusion of different species into urban collections which produced cultivation hybrids, some of which have escaped cultivation and intruded into the ranges of distinct species population and are creating minor degrees of pollution. But I would bet that most of what are considered intermediaries are located primarily alongside areas of human habitation. In the wilderness I would think that the original populations of natural distinct species continue to exist unabated.
There continues to be broad swathes of territory unclaimed by Trichocereus, and possibly distinct populations undescribed as of yet.
As for the V-shaped notch, there are species like the short spined T. peruvianus which are far more deserving of this designation than others which bear a mark but which don't seem to be quite deserving of being called a notch. And even on this plant, with the bloating and stretching of it with full hydration the mark fully flattens out and becomes a fully horizontal and flush line above, and not touching, the areole. T. pachanoi will occasionally have a light mark, but it isn't a product of what can only be described as tubercle formation as they come forth from the meristem as is obvious when examining the short spined T. peruvianus, a plant which only got the designation short spined because of my past belief, as well as of many others, that the T. peruvianus KK242 (T. cuzcoensis) was the real T. peruvianus. Interestingly enough, the short spined plant was not considered anything other than T. peruvianus when it came to my attention and I shared the awareness of this plant with other entheophiles who have been addressing Trichocereus to a degree not outdone by the greater cactus and succulent community.
Posted 05 November 2006 - 06:44 PM
Posted 05 November 2006 - 07:33 PM
How can someone who has a dozen different varieties say for sure that their plant was only pollinated by the pollen they introduced. Nature has it's own way.
I think originally in nature these are many phenotypes in a species that are not expressed. I know more about snakes, and if you could see the colors they are coming up with just by selective breeding. Solid white Boas and Pythons. Or the extreme differences in Cannabis varieties.
If it is possible to breed Cannabis sativa with Indica or Ruderalis, why could there not be many many different crosses of Trichocereus species.
When you move a species out of it's specific geographical location, and introduce it to cousins that is was not able to breed with in the past, you are asking for a genetic drift from the original source species.
Book on Reptile color breeding
Posted 05 November 2006 - 08:15 PM
Posted 05 November 2006 - 08:49 PM
Some of these may be closer to the true form, but most all are derived from an original.
But on another note, like cannabis I would hope than in cultivation there is selective breeding focused to a certian goal. Weither it be potency, cold tollerance, growth speed, morphology or the ideal to keep a pure representation of the species.
I think like most hobbies there will continue to be innovations, and people who want to further the investigation of what is possible. We all want to be one the cutting edge, and try new things.
But there are just so many issues to overcome. How do you breed for a trait when even clones don't always keep the traits of the mother. Unless you are just breeding locality pure species, how do you judge what you are getting in your offspring. Bioassay?
Morphs. I do not know that you can breed and get 100% mutant seeds.
I wonder if it is a recessive trait. But why does it come and go in some plants? Normal plants that start to get mutant growth, and then revert back to normal?
I have a lot of questions, and things I want to try, but just not enough time in a day.
Posted 19 October 2007 - 07:06 PM
Posted 21 October 2007 - 06:23 PM
hat's off to mycotopia and it's members for providing easy to get answers.