Peruvianus Var? or what?

[Philocacti]

My opinion would be that

b = short spined T. peruvianus

check this link out http://www.largelyaccurateinformatio..._pachanot.html

[Williamsii]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsii View Post
There has been very little study into the alkaloid content of different cactus species.
absolute horseshit

Here's just a few:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/s...ctus+alkaloids
http://www.springerlink.com/content/?k=cactus+alkaloids
http://www.thegrowreport.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8
http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?...36&cookieSet=1

I'm sorry, I did not communicate my statement as precisely as I should have. My statement was too broad and you rightly contradicted it. As this thread was looking at Trichocereus species and identifying them, I made that statement specifically in regards to the small number of studies done into the alkaloids present and their concentrations in Trichocereus species without adequately expressing it.

Quote:
Certainly not enough to come close to being able to identify the species of a cactus by knowing what alkaloids are present and what concentrations they are in.
more unadulterated bullshit.

Try telling me that L williamsii has the same alkaloids as L diffusa.

Those two species have a significantly different chemical make up and there has also been a lot of study into Lophophora williamsii. The same can not be said of Trichocereus species. Take a look at this page: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cacti/c...trichoce.shtml. The alkaloids shown to be present and their concentrations (when shown) are based on a limited number of studies and are therefore in my opinion not reliable enough to be able to accurately identify a cactus by knowing it's alkaloid content.

Quote:
Furthermore, alkaloid concentrations vary greatly between individuals within the same species of cactus.

That is a given, considering the different growing conditions including climate, nutrients, soils and amount of available sunlight.

So, if there is variation, how can you trust the few sources of data on the chemical constituents of Trichocereus pachanoi and other Trichocerus sp. to create the chemical boundaries needed to then identify a cactus species through chemical analysis?

On pages 220-221 Trout is talking about Juuls Giant's, where he goes on to say there are at least two forms in cultivation. Further, he states that GC-MS (gas chromatography-mass spectrometry) tests by Shulgin showed them to be distinct from each other chemically even though the original source was believed to be identical.

from Shulgin's GC-MS work:
Juuls Giant (A):
unknown isoquinoline was 90%
mescaline less than 10%
minor isoquinoline (not specified)
3 trace isoquinolines (not identified)

Juuls Giant (JM):
major alkaloid is an unknown compound
mescaline does not appear to be present
also observed some sort of phenylethanol

The chromatographic spectrum analysis was not used to identify the species of the cactus. In fact, both samples were from the same species and, as you point out, were extremely closely related. This only vindicates my point that chemical variation even within one species makes chemical analysis an unreliable method for identifying cactus species.

Furthermore, seeing as Trichocereus species can easily become hybrids, the publications analysing chemical make up of one species could not be compared with a chemical analysis of a potential hybrid in order to identify it. The published data would not be relevant to the many possible hybrid combinations that have not yet been analysed. Also, hybrid Trichocereus species are commonly and widely circulated.

[lapslideman]

Dudes...lets have peace in this thread

perhaps someone should start a new thread on chromatography and identification.

You both said #1 was most likely a T. pachanoi
Pandora said #2 was T. Pachanoi,
Williamsii said #2 is maybe a pachanoi
both said #3 is a pachanot.

now everyone be nice.

Peace

[M_S_Smith]

I would say a and b are rather typical T. pachanoi sorts you find throughout Ecuador and Peru, this as opposed to the "predominant cultivar (PC)" which may be considered a rather atypical T. pachanoi, but which I've considered closer to T. bridgesii of Bolivia than to the T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru. The PC has yet to be found in habitat by the way.

As for c it could also be considered a typical T. pachanoi, even with the lengthier spines and more glaucus skin, but if it bore any other plants genetics I would say that would be T. peruvianus...this even though I don't think there really is a "species" difference between T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus, but rather see the terms helpful for describing the same plants with the primary different being spine length and glaucescence...both being much more prevalent on T. peruvianus.

The more I look at the situation the more I see the plants we call T. pachanoi as being nothing but the multiple breeds of a progenitor, with this progenitor being most similar to the T. peruvianus plants of Huarochiri, Peru (Matucana being in Huarochiri).

~Michael~

[zakmalados]

There is your expert input.

Regardless of what you might believe, Pandora is far from a novice in identifying cacti. M.S. Smith is a widely recognized authority on the matter.

Like I said, you are going to find that even the experts will disagree on some "trichotype" cacti identifications.

I like what you said, MS. It looks to me like there are a lot of variations on the same theme. It's more than a scholar can do, to ID cacti with so many near-relatives, and so little information to work with.

If the OP does actually get an ID from somewhere, he might even get a correct one. To me, they be's trichocereus pachabridgaruvianus, the whole lot.

Zak

[foxwichya]

Thanks Michael

[M_S_Smith]

Somebody threw together a nice torrent of Trichocereus in South America. Download and have a look at the variability of the T. pachanoi/peruvianus complex. I sort of see the T. peruvianus of Lima/Huarochiri/Matucana being the wolf while T. pachanoi has become breed after breed of dogs.

See http://www.mininova.org/tor/2815417 for the torrent.

~Michael~

[Pandora]

Originally Posted by M_S_Smith

Somebody threw together a nice torrent of Trichocereus in South America. Download and have a look at the variability of the T. pachanoi/peruvianus complex. I sort of see the T. peruvianus of Lima/Huarochiri/Matucana being the wolf while T. pachanoi has become breed after breed of dogs.

See http://www.mininova.org/tor/2815417 for the torrent.

~Michael~

I've downloaded it Michael and 90% or more of it is bunk.


Here. lets look at just a few of the 1937 files in 40 folders:






Very few pictures are identified by species name and at that can be anything that anybody wants to call them.

95% of the valid cacti pictures are poorly taken due to poor lighting, or out of focus, or too far away to be significant, or are cultivated plants of questionable origin for this torrent to be worthy of downloading.

Originally Posted by M_S_Smith

The PC has yet to be found in habitat by the way.

When a person looks at the cuttings found in the 'Witches Market" and 'Shaman Mercados' , they look exactly like the PC clone.
They must import them from the USA.



Or this one, which appears to be growing in the wild: (foreground on the right)

Originally Posted by M_S_Smith

The more I look at the situation the more I see the plants we call T. pachanoi as being nothing but the multiple breeds of a progenitor, with this progenitor being most similar to the T. peruvianus plants of Huarochiri, Peru (Matucana being in Huarochiri).

Originally Posted by M_S_Smith

I sort of see the T. peruvianus of Lima/Huarochiri/Matucana being the wolf while T. pachanoi has become breed after breed of dogs.

Lets take a look at the files found in the \Peru\Photos by---\Photos by Icaros folder, one of the only 2 folders in the torrent that shows pictures from the Lima/Huarochiri/Matucana area.

So a guy named Icaros finds a few blue cacti, names them T.peruvianus Icaros, and bingo that's what they become.









post continued below...

[Pandora]

continued...

Now lets look at the other folder of pics from the Huara area:
\Trichocereus in South America\Peru\Photos by---\Photos by Leo Martin - Huara Peru









MS Smith appears to be quite the 'expert' when it comes to hypothesizing about the identity of various trichocereus species from pictures posted to the internet or pictures of plants he grows in pots & winters in his garage.

One can only wonder what his expert opinions would be if those same plants were planted in mother earth and allowed to develop to their full potential in spine-ation and glaucousity.

Here's one of the few worthy pictures in the torrent that may assist some people in identifying their particular trichocereus plants:

[Philocacti]

Originally Posted by Pandora

When a person looks at the cuttings found in the 'Witches Market" and 'Shaman Mercados' , they look exactly like the PC clone.
They must import them from the USA.



Or this one, which appears to be growing in the wild: (foreground on the right)

post continued below...

I'm no expert or anything but these do not look like the PC clone at all, they look more like short spined T. pachanoi/peruvianus than the PC clone.

The PC clone has a very distinctive areol structure