Trichocereus bridgesii


   There are many forms of Trichocereus bridgesii (aka Echinopsis lageniformis) in the wild and represented in horticulture. The images below represent just a few of those many.
   Anderson appears to have expanded the range of Trichocereus bridgesii well into Peru and applied it to the Trichocereus huanucoensis at Huanuco which can reach 7 (or more) inches in diameter. This was done with no inclusion of any additional details so we can only wonder at Anderson’s reasoning as to why he felt it was closer to Trichocereus bridgesii than Trichocereus pachanoi or Trichocereus peruvianus.

   Cuttings on the top left came from Huanuco, Peru.
  Photograph is copyright by Kitzu.
  I was told that its spines fell off during transportation.


    Image above on the right & the next pair below are H 1294 at the Huntington.
   These were obtained as 8 seedlings from Curt Backeberg, which they received the 9th of February 1932.



Both tips of the next tips are of aff. bridgesii (H 79960 at the Huntington)



  A Trichocereus bridgesii grown from Friedrich Ritter’s seeds that were obtained by UC in 1953.



  Although most of these are in cultivation everything depicted above is originally from wild collections.


Some views of Trichocereus bridgesii in Bolivia.




  Next are offerings from two different witches markets in Bolivia that appear to be for tourists.
  While some of the tips shown are thus far the closest cacti we have yet seen to the pachanot, this is misleading as they also typically to show the presence of some much longer spines which on these cuttings have been removed.




A couple of oddly stout Trichocereus bridgesii in horticulture. The one on the right was purchased as Trichocereus pachanoi in New Mexico.



Copyright © by Keeper Trout
except where indicated otherwise.

Trichocereus species flowers


   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):






Copyright © by Keeper Trout


alternative answers?

  Alternative answers are always possible, as is the possibility of a definitive answer remaining elusive. I presently lack an actual conclusion as the data gathering process is clearly not over. There are still multiple dangling loose ends and unanswered questions that could potentially produce a different path of thought – depending on what was learned if and when more information ever comes to the surface. The trails to follow have often proven to be quite old and cold.  

  1) If the plant in what used to be Eltzner’ garden turned out to have collection data rather than being of horticultural origin it might shed some light. That seems too much to hope for even if he was still alive to ask.

an alternative - Trichocereus pachanot in Oakland


  2) If the white wooly fruited plant in Oz (NSW) ever has some collection data or the name of its collector unearthed it might suggest an area in Ecuador to search for the pachanot.

  This plant does not appear to be an identical match with the pachanot but it DOES show an interestingly white wool covered fruit on a line its owner believed was collected in Ecuador.

 an alternative - Trichocerus-pachanoi-Ecuador-Oz



3) I still have not determined if what is at UC labelled huanucoensis really grew from Harry Johnson’s seed or if it is simply a mislabeled pachanot. I would like to suspect the latter.

  (This is in reference to the version in the front parts of the garden not those located farther back which were mentioned elsewhere here.)

  Assuming that this can be shown to be synonymous with the pachanot, as some commercial growers believe this is simply a pachanot that was mislabeled, probably in the early 1960s, this specimen would be the oldest living representative I have thusfar encountered.
I have yet to see this one after it was out under more favorable conditions so still have questions. 




  4) There are also questions involving the riomizquensis sold by Horst Kunzler and the population it was derived from since almost every plant that NMCR sold was grown from seed he had planted or was harvested from a mother plant that he had grown from seed.

  Nigel Taylor has referred to it as Echinopsis pachanoi subsp. riomizquiensis.
Friends visiting Bolivia have not yet been able to track it down.


5) If it can ever be substantiated that there is a populations of the pachanot existing in the wild or it being produced from a wild seed. (It being produced from a seed would be interesting in itself.)

6) wrt items 5 & 6, there is some interesting material in Bolivia suggesting the suggestion of need for further local exploration; as this blow-up from one of Dani’s photos illustrates..




  7) If the claims of this originating through Oz from an early Ritter field expedition (via Field’s hands) can really be substantiated.




  8) If the material his father received from Harry Blossfeld in 1935, something that is actually in Field’s collection, turns out to be synonymous with the pachanot. If that could be established, it would go far to explain why it appears to be present in the USA, Europe AND Oz as, according to Robert Field, Blossfeld sold a total of 12 shares in order to finance his expedition costs. See a more detailed discussion in the forthcoming 2015 edition of the San Pedro book.



  There is also a very similar plant at Field’s, from the same source, that produces more blackish hairs. Field believed this to be a trivial difference. Compare for yourself in the following image that shows them both together.

   Many things are possible of course as not all of the facts are in yet. It is certainly possible that the pachanot is simply a naturally occurring form of Trichocereus pachanoi with a hair color variation despite the *seemingly* lack of anyone’s ability to locate it in the wild (and the various other differences that we’ve mentioned). Just because something occurs in a given location does not guarantee it a place in the earth or continued existance if someone disagrees. Many entire populations of many different cactus species have disappeared and will no doubt continue to do so. 

    This first image has both that and what may be the pachanot growing together. The rest of the following are just the darker haired one. There also appears to be at least two additional pachanoi forms at Field’s so it is not clear if all of these came from Blossfeld. 



  8) No doubt there are many additional alternate answers I do not yet know about or have not thought of. 

  Let me know what YOU can think of!




Use your back button to return.

Or to go to:

pachanoi or pachanot?

Additional material to ponder: 



Thanks for reading!

Copyright © by Keeper Trout where applicable;

Trichocereus pachanoi or pachanoids?


  A representative few of the many interesting Trichocereus pachanoi or pachanoid offerings that are present in horticulture.

Trichocereus aff. huanucoensis
  This specimen is missing its accession data but is suspected by Jon Trager of being grown from seeds provided to the Huntington by Harry Johnson. 

 The pachanoid Trichocereus aff Huanucoensis

Trichocereus huanucoensis

  The next image is of another pachanoid plant at the Huntington. It was grown from seeds provided to them by Harry Johnson. 

 The pachanoid Trichocereus huanucoensis

   The image below is of a plant of Trichocereus huanucoensis at UC.
   This too was grown from seeds provided to them by Harry Johnson. 


Trichocereus pachanoi cv. Juul’s Giant
  The cutting shown below was harvested directly from a plant in Tom Juul’s backyard garden in San Francisco. No origin data exists but it is suspected of originating on one of the UC cactus collection expeditions but losing its collection data during transportation. These amazingly productive expeditions were cancelled due to criticism that it was inappropriate for an academic institution and commercial cactus vendors to be engaging in co-ventures (as opposed to the spectrum of other academic-commercial co-ventures that exist at UC outside of the world of cactus collecting.)  

 The pachanoid Trichocereus pachanoi cv. Juul's Giant

Trichocerus “peruvianus” Huancabamba (on the left – sp. Peru 64.0762 is to its right and behind it.)
  This entered horticulture via seeds collected in Peru during the 1960s by Dick Van Geest and sold through Mesa Garden over the course of many years. It is variable in appearance but is clearly far more a pachanoi than a peruvianoid.


   There is also some different material that
Paul Hutchison collected as live cuttings from Huancabamba

Trichocereus scopulicola
  This Ritter species is currently believed to be extinct in the wild. Or at least several sets of people have been unable to locate it including botanists searching on behalf of the Kew prior to the publication of Hunt’s New Cactus Lexicon. It is suspected of having been extirpated by freely wandering goats, as is the case for a number of cactus species.

  Seed-grown in England.

The pachanoid Trichocereus scopulicola grown in England

Seed-grown in Oz.

The pachanoid Trichocereus scopulicola in Oz

Seed-grown in USA (NMCR).

The pachanoid Trichocereus scopulicola NMCR

Trichocereus pachanoi
  Collected in the 1960s in Huamachuco Prov., La Libertad Dept., Peru.
Paul C. Hutchison, J. K. Wright & R.M. Straw 6212

  (UC Peru 64.0762)
This fat pachanoid specimen is no longer present in UC’s desert garden. The last time I saw it there the plant was suffering badly from heavy predation and the rot produced from careless and badly timed harvesting. This plant has been regularly sold via their annual plant sale so it is a tragic loss to all visitors to that garden.

 The pachanoid Peru 64.0762

Trichocereus pachanoi
   Collected in the 1960s in Bongara Prov., Peru
Paul C. Hutchison & Jerry K. Wright 4013
   (UC Peru 65.0729)
More recently this plant had its name tag changed to Echinopsis macrogona and, strangely, was given a new accession number and date. The plant itself, however, has not changed.


Trichocereus pachanoi Strybig
  I was told by the Strybig’s staff that this was obtained from UC. The most plausible candidate would seem to be  Peru 65.0729. However, that plant from UC has been demonstrated to show an interesting spiralling desiccation of its flowers that seems to be transferred through its progeny. The Strybig’s does not appear to have this feature. Whether that is enough to make them different or if they are one and the same remains to be proven through study.

A pachanoid Trichocereus pachanoi at the Strybig

 The same lineage growing in a commercial cactus grower’s operation.

The pachanoid Trichocereus pachanoi Strybig


Trichocereus pachanoi R. Montgomery; Peru
   I presently lack any additional data concerning what was said to be a field collection acquired in Peru many years ago.


Trichocereus pachanoi Torres & Torres; N. Chile
   This came from what was believed to be a wild collection made by M & D Torres at fairly high altitude in northern Chile.  It appeared to be a wild plant which, if true, would extend the range of Trichocereus pachanoi into that country.
(This is the plant that provided material for the article “San Pedro in a Pressure Pot”.)

The pachanoid Trichocereus pachanoi Torres & Torres N. Chile

Use your back button to return.

Or to go to:

pachanoi or pachanot?

Additional material to ponder: 

Copyright © by Keeper Trout