Peruvianus Var? or what?

[foxwichya]

Im sorry. i do not. But I will find someone who is.

[Williamsii]

Have a read through the pages here for more information on peruvianus: http://sacredcactus.com/peruvian_torch.htm

I think A is most likely T. pachanoi. B is a maybe but C is almost definitely not a pachanoi.

Hi Pandora, Thanks for the link. I checked it out. That link on the link you sent and all It basicaly said was the spines can be either short or long. The artical was mainly about the flower on the pachanoi. Wich I have never seen this one bloom at all. So, it was'nt to helpful for me. The article did not mention the about deep ridges above every spine like most every peruvianus has.

Here is a better page that shows many side by side comparsions of the spines and aereoles of pachanoi and the so called 'pachanot': http://www.largelyaccurateinformatio.../pedro_02.html

Read this thread also: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/show...fpart/all/vc/1

I recommend you post an identification request in the Shroomery ethnobotanical garden. You should get a higher number of reliable identifiers there.

[foxwichya]

Thanks Williamsii, That was great and lots of good information.

[Williamsii]

How would a chromatographic spectrum analysis help with identifying a cactus? How would being able to separate the chemicals in the cactus help identify it? Pachanoi is not the only cactus species to contain its alkaloids and the concentrations of those alkaloids.

[Williamsii]

There has been very little study into the alkaloid content of different cactus species. 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. Furthermore, alkaloid concentrations vary greatly between individuals within the same species of cactus.

The first link you give demonstrates both the lack of data and the varied results within one cactus species. There are only four concentrations of mescaline for Trichocereus pachanoi given: 2.375%, 2%, 0.67% and 0.33%. There are only two for peruvianus: 0.817% and 0%. The reliability of this data is very low as we have so little data. Based on these findings, how could you then identify a cactus species with some plant matter that had 0.7% mescaline?

[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.

[Maslow]

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