Backeberg’s view

Image

This is Curt Backeberg’s view of Trichocereus pachanoi
The image below was published in Backeberg’s 1959 Die Cactaceae.
It shows the Trichocereus pachanoi that was identified
and collected by Backeberg at Huancabamba.

Assuming there really is such a thing as “Backeberg’s clone” it will look like the tip above and not like the pachanot.
If anyone knows anything about the material Backeberg said he brought into horticulture I would love hearing about it. Drop me an email or snail mail.

Use your back button to return.

Or to go to:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Smith’s observations
with excerpts from some published descriptions.
Topic 1: Backeberg’s clone
Topic 2: pachanoi compared to pachanot.

Additional material to ponder:

pachanoi fruit compared to pachanot fruit

Image

The lack of black and dark brown hairs on the fruit of the pachanot (on the right below) might not be so conceptually challenging for me if Trichocereus pachanoi did not actually exist with blackly or dark brownly hairy fruit (on left below).

Use your back button to return.

Or to go to:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Smith’s observations
with excerpts from some published descriptions.
Topic 1: Backeberg’s clone
Topic 2: pachanoi compared to pachanot.

Additional material to ponder:

Comparison of the areoles of a pachanot and a Trichocereus pachanoi

Image

Areoles of “our pachanot” (top) and Trichocereus pachanoi (bottom) compared.
While it would be possible to assemble a whole page comparing their areoles, I suspect that enough already exist elsewhere in this article, so only a simple pair is being included below.

Our pachanot above

Trichocereus pachanoi below

Trichocereus species flowers

Image

A comparison of the flowers from a few assorted Trichocereus species that appear to be closely related to each other based on their simple morphology. (click here for a larger version):

cuttings of Trichocereus pachanoi from Peru

Image

These are cuttings of a bona fide Trichocereus pachanoi from Peru that were harvested at Matucana and then shipped to the USA. These provided the botanical material that was analyzed by Olabode Ogunbodede; with results published in the 15 September 2010 issue of the Journal of Ethnopharmacology (Volume 131, Issue 2, Pages 356–362).

These tips spent some months inside of a box traveling through the postal system. Obtaining these cuttings proved to be a surreal adventure as it took well over a year with many convolutions including the final delivery lacking identification labels and documentation. It was nothing short of a minor miracle that successful delivery was actually realized.

Images copyrighted by & courtesy of
the Cactus Conservation Institute

Use your back button to return.

Or to go to:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Smith’s observations
with excerpts from some published descriptions.
Topic 1: Backeberg’s clone
Topic 2: pachanoi compared to pachanot.

Additional material to ponder:

our pachanot

Image

Here are some views of our pachanot again; just to be certain that there is no confusion about our subject.
The first image on this page was taken at the LA Arboretum of a plant they purchased from one of the major cactus growers in the Vista area.
The second two on this page were in my garden and the last image was taken at the former site of Carl Eltzner’s cactus nursery in Oakland.

[a couple of new growth images]

[some fruit images]

Use your back button to return.

Or to go to:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Smith’s observations
with excerpts from some published descriptions.
Topic 1: Backeberg’s clone
Topic 2: pachanoi compared to pachanot.

Additional material to ponder:

hybrids of some Trichocereus and their parents

Image

F1 hybrids resulting from a couple of the great many known Trichocereus pachanot crosses.

The images below are compared to their parents which follow them.

The first image sheet shows a single set of F1 hybrids produced by George Fuller using both directions of crossing for Trichocereus pachanot X Trichocereus peruvianus:

[Larger views of the individual images and more from that same crossing.]

Their parents:
The pachanot is on the left and Trichocereus peruvianus is on the right.

Next image sheet shows a single set of F1 hybrids resulting from the crossing of Trichocereus pachanot X Trichocereus pachanoi cv. Juul’s Giant:

Their parents:
Our pachanot on the left & Trichocereus pachanoi cv. Juul’s Giant is on the right.

Rather interesting?

Use your back button to return.

Or to return to elsewhere in the article:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Smith’s observations
with excerpts from some published descriptions.
Topic 1: Backeberg’s clone
Topic 2: pachanoi compared to pachanot.

Additional material to ponder:

Trichocereus pachanoi in Peru

Image

Trichocereus pachanoi in Peru exhibits a fascinatingly wide range of forms. It is believed to have been introduced from Ecuador some millennia ago so this suggests either that is in error or that it has undergone some surprisingly rapid changes since its introduction. How much of that is due to potential interaction with previously existing Peruvian Trichocereus species and how much is the result of simple recombinant events and local environmental shaping over time remains to be studied.
Trichocereus pachanoi has been intensively cultivated by humans for an unclear number of millennia although it is clear, based on the archaeological evidence, that it has been at least several. During that process it has been moved all over the Andes, apparently from Ecuador to Argentina, and has become naturalized in a number of areas in Peru. It is popularly cultivated and widely admired for its bountiful fragrant flowers.

The existance of short and long spined variants is what has helped a perception of intergrading that has confounded botanists and caused some to pronounce a synonymity between Trichocereus pachanoi and Trichocereus peruvianus. Since Trichocereus peruvianus shows a similar spectrum of spination the resulting confusion is understandable.

pachanoi in Ecuador

pachanoi in Bolivia

Use your back button to return.

To go back to the article:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Smith’s observations
with excerpts from some published descriptions.
Topic 1: Backeberg’s clone
Topic 2: pachanoi compared to pachanot.

Additional material to ponder:

pachanoi & pachanot: Topic 2

Image

South American Trichocereus pachanoi
compared to
the predominate “pachanot” cultivated in the USA

This page is a bit image heavy. . .

As was mentioned previously, I began referring to this as pachanoi PC out of laziness, namely when growing tired of typing or speaking using ‘the predominate cultivar of Trichocereus pachanoi‘ as a noun. Or PC could as easily refer to the ‘predominate clone’ since it does seem to be produced entirely vegetatively despite it freely flowering & readily hybridizing — or *maybe* it should stand for politically correct, I don’t know. (I do know that I have grown to doubt that it is actually a pachanoi and am presently suspecting it may be a pachanoi hybrid. Let’s come back to that later.)
Questions have been raised about the culturecentrism of this “PC” view as a basis for a designation. As it is not necessarily the predominate cultivar elsewhere in the world this term PC needed abandonment and replacement. Not for sake of proposing a name but simply to be able to have a unique noun to be able use as a term of reference so we can discuss the matter.
As a result, in this discussion it is jokingly referred to as Trichocereus pachanot.
This is the primary Western cultivar sold in the US under the names Trichocereus pachanoi, San Pedro and sometimes as Echinopsis peruviana in southern California.

This is that same bona fide pachanoi growing in a shaman’s garden near Cuzco
(Photo copyright by Geneva Photography)

Notice the details of the flowers and how smooth edged this plant is? Also how indented/sunken the areoles are and the planar relationship they have to the median of the rib? Take a closer look here or farther below. Now go back to Backeberg’s pachanoi photo and compare this and then compare both to the pachanot.
Spines here and in Backeberg’s photo are shorter than on the pachanot but spine length is something that can almost be disregarded (within reason) for being a variable characteristic. When they have short spines, it is a common thing for the short expressions of the spination on pachanoi to be consistently much shorter than the already short spines of the pachanot.

Many of the trichs show ranges of characteristics rather than set characteristics so it is easy to become diverted from some important points concerning the predominate cultivar.
a) It does not match the description of pachanoi as given by Rose & others in perhaps minor but very consistent ways.
b) It is readily differentiable from the pachanoi that seems to be most common in Ecuador and Peru. This is true of its morphology, its floral elements and its fruit.
c) Thus far it has NOT been encountered in the wild or in use among Peruvian shamans.
d) It shows characteristics of both its flower and its fruit, as well as intensely vigorous growth, that are suggestive of it being a selection derived from a hybrid.
e) It is dramatically lower in alkaloid content than a bona fide pachanoi such as would be selected for ceremonial use by a shaman in Peru.
While a pachanoiXbridgesii is at least plausible, there are other possibilites.
We may never know the answer with any degree of certainty – perhaps not even with a lot of work that is yet to be done.

Below we will soon be seeing a series of typical pachanoi from South America compared to the pachanot that we most commonly have growing in the US.

The first images were shared by MS Smith who brought this subject to my attention in the first place. All of these images are said to be of Ecuadorian pachanoi.
The one on the left is said to be a photo of a voucher collected in Ecuador by Timothy Plowman. The ones on the right were said to be taken in Ecuador as well.
I do not know their photographers.

These next two tips are both Ecuadorian pachanoi sold by Karel Knize in Lima, Peru and shipped to Texas.

Now this is going to start to get interesting. Or perhaps at some point it will become just boringly repetitive, so feel free to skip ahead whenever that happens to you.
On the left below is a pachanoi in Peru and on the right is a US horticultural pachanot.
Pay particular attention to the spination, areoles, flower buds, flowers, pericarpels, tubes, scales, hairs arising from the axils of those scales, the fruit and the contour of the ribs.

Ecuadorian pachanoi from Knize (KK339) on the left and on the right pachanot

bona fide pachanoi can sometimes be encountered in the US as is shown on the left (Photo by Anonymous) and on the right is our pachanot again.

Peruvian pachanoi on the left (photograph by Grizzly) and on the right pachanot.

Peruvian pachanoi from Matucana (photo from Kitzu) on the left and on the right pachanot.

Ecuadorian pachanoi from Knize on the left and on the right pachanot.

Flower buds
Upper left image is from Peru: Photographer is unknown to us.
The bottom left and the entire right column are pachanot.

Flower buds
In Peru on left (Geneva Photography)/ On right is the pachanot

A closer look
In Peru on left (Geneva Photography)/ On right is the pachanot

In Peru on left (Photographer?)/ On right is the pachanot

Ovary & tube
In Peru on left (Geneva Photography)/ On right is the pachanot

Flower tube/receptacle
Bona fide pachanoi growing in Oz is on left (photo by Zariat) and on right is typical US pachanot cultivar.

Flowers:
pachanoi near Cuzco, Peru on left (Geneva photography) and pachanot in Oakland, California on right

Flowers & fruit:
Peruvian pachanoi photographed by Friedrich Ritter is on the top left and two more Peruvian pachanoi are below it. The pachanot on the right were in California.

The next image is all the US pachanot cv.
For pachanoi the ovaries were described as being covered with black wool.
While these typically do show very short black or dark brown hairs along the axils of the scales on the tube and similarly on the ovary/fruit they are generally obscured by white and/or light brown and/or greyish wool and can be absent. Compare this with the examples of similar locations on the floral tube, ovary and fruit on the Peruvian pachanoi shown above.

Fruit:
Peruvian pachanoi on left. pachanot on right.

To bring this conversation back towards the elephant in the room:

If anyone wonders WHY this cultivar now predominates the US market almost to uniformity consider that it shows intense vigor permitting commercial operations such as can be seen below.
This shows but a small part of a single professional propagator’s mother plants:
(Photos by Anonymous)

Reflect on this undeniable observation: The pachanot is much faster growing, far more cold tolerant, and is both more rot resistant and more water tolerant than a bona fide Trichocereus pachanoi. In fact if a person pumps their pachanot with water it grows almost as well as watermelons.
The simple mechanics of its vegetative propagation combined with its popularity as an ornamental obviously would favor it becoming the predominate horticultural offering over a fairly short period of time (in this case a few decades – possibly as little as around fifty years if it involved Paul Hutchison but there is also evidence suggesting it might have occurred as long ago as the 1930s if it was something from Harry Blossfeld. A more detailed discussion of the existing evidence will be appearing in the next edition of the San Pedro book which will be available on this website along with the rest of Sacred Cacti 4th edition.)
A small group of friends and I are still actively searching for confirmation that this is what actually occurred.
It is now so prevalent in US horticulture that it is presently fairly rare to encounter anything else being produced commercially.

If anyone has more information concerning this plant’s origin, especially if you have facts to the contrary and/or if you can tell us its precise point of entry into US horticulture or offer any additional details, please contact us at:

pachanot
@
keepertrout

DOT net

All photographs are copyright by their photographers.

Photos are by Keeper Trout except where indicated otherwise.

Use your back button to return.

To go back to the article:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Smith’s observations
with excerpts from some published descriptions.
Topic 1: Backeberg’s clone
Topic 2: pachanoi compared to pachanot. (Your present location)

Additional material to ponder:

bona fide aguacolla flower at Cactus Country

Pachanoi or pachanot; Topic 1 Backeberg

Posted on November 1, 2014 by admin

Or more specifically why “Backeberg’s clone” is mythology

I unfortunately have helped to widely propagate this mistake (now an established urban legend) in print by including it in my books Sacred Cacti and San Pedro.

What most people refer to as Backeberg’s clone is the predominate cactus sold as Trichocereus pachanoi in US horticulture.

We have all no doubt seen many thousands of feet of it growing in countless people’s gardens in multiple states.

It is even featured in the very center of the front cover of the Trout’s Notes book San Pedro which has an entire section of photographs more or less devoted to it.

While the search is still ongoing and far from complete, thusfar I can find no proof that this plant is known from the wild.

Just to be sure that our subject is clear, here is an example or three (all are in California):

And a close-up of a fairly typical tip.

And of a fairly typical areole.

And another picture showing a flowering plant that is still growing at the former site of Carl Eltzner’s cactus nursery in Oakland.

This on the other hand is Backeberg’s actual photograph of a bona fide Trichocereus pachanoi taken from his 1959 Die Cactaceae. (Backeberg encountered this plant in Peru.)

The differences are both subtle and not so subtle.
Whatever the pachanot turns out to be it is clearly not the same creature that Backeberg shows here. For those not yet convinced please bear with me and check out some more images of bona fide pachanoi.

This next image is a bona fide pachanoi growing in shaman’s garden near Cuzco, Peru (Photo copyright Geneva Photography; reproduced here with permission.)

Notice how nicely this matches Backeberg’s photo and how different it is from the predominate cultivar in the USA?

This preceeding image will reappear with more comments elsewhere here but I wanted to have a copy here for ease of comparison with the other images on this page.

This next shot shows a close-up of a tip of a Peruvian pachanoi (the shininess is due to this tip cutting having been handled excessively).

For more of what appears to be the same thing
but obtained through an unrelated source

For a closer view of more of the same but
from Ecuador via yet another unrelated source.

Another view of another bona fide Trichocereus pachanoi in Peru.

Both photographs above are copyright Grizzly.

Just to be sure that no one forgets that pachanoi can be variably spiny.

We will be exploring this subject in more detail but could summarize this by saying that the plant now mistakenly called Backeberg’s clone (namely our pachanot) is not the same plant Backeberg recognized as pachanoi at Huancabamba and claims to have brought into horticulture in Germany in 1931.

I have some questions about this latter claim as well as it appears that pachanoi may already have been *in horticulture in the USA* by, if not well before, 1930 and it does not appear that anyone in Europe or elsewhere preserved any knowledge of which European pachanoi might have come from Backeberg.

Use your back button to return.

Or to go to:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

The lack of black and dark brown hairs on the fruit of the pachanot (on the right below) might not be so conceptually challenging for me if Trichocereus pachanoi did not actually exist with blackly or dark brownly hairy fruit (on left below).

Use your back button to return.

Or to go to:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Images copyrighted by & courtesy of the Cactus Conservation Institute

Use your back button to return.

Or to go to:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Use your back button to return.

Or to go to:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

F1 hybrids resulting from a couple of the great many known Trichocereus pachanot crosses.

Use your back button to return.

Or to return to elsewhere in the article:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Use your back button to return.

To go back to the article:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

South American Trichocereus pachanoi compared to the predominate “pachanot” cultivated in the USA

Use your back button to return.

To go back to the article:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Or more specifically why “Backeberg’s clone” is mythology

Use your back button to return.

To go back to the article:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

Images copyrighted by & courtesy of
the Cactus Conservation Institute

South American Trichocereus pachanoi
compared to
the predominate “pachanot” cultivated in the USA