NMCR 2010 poco – thelegonus

Gallery

**Some more Trichocereus that were still at NMCR in 2010:
from poco albiflorus through thelegonus.**

This is the final photo set of our 1 August, 2010 visit to New Mexico Cactus Research.
The featured image above illustrates how the cacti had overgrown some of their tags. Many of the plant tags were in rough shape, some were missing completely, some were missing a part of the tag and some had become illegible.
More images illustrating the new growth on all of the cuttings which Horst kindly provided will be coming in the future.

Trichocereus poco albiflorus

From Cuchu Ingenio, Bolivia. Tag also had the note “possibly Argentina”
Seeds had been collected by “DM” and were obtained by NMCR 4/1977, Horst planted them in April 1980.
Now lumped with Trichocereus tarijensis.

Trichocereus riomizquiensis

FR856 type from Chuyllas, Bolivia (Rio Mizque).
Seeds had been obtained from Riviere de Carault in November of 1972 and were planted on the first of July in 1980 by Horst.

Trichocereus rubinghanus (I am presently unable to locate this name.)

Grown from seeds obtained from Riviere de Carault but missing a tag.

Trichocereus scopulicolus

FR991 grown from seeds that Horst obtained from Riviere de Carault. They were planted in 1980. Date of seed acquisition is unknown due to partial tag destruction.

Trichocereus spachianus forma brevispinulus

Grown from seed provided by RIV. Horst described this as being an old form which is present in European nurseries.

Trichocereus strigosus

Seeds were obtained from “Lopez” in June 1976; they were planted in July of 1980.

Trichocereus terscheckii

“Cardon Grande” from Argentina. Seeds came from “Lopez” in February 1976; Horst planted them July 1980.

Trichocereus thelegonus

These production mothers were grown from seeds that NMCR acquired from Field in February of 1976. (This is also the featured image on this page.)

This is what they can become when not repeatedly cut for sale.

Unclear Trichocereus
This was lacking a locateable label.

My visit is divided as :

Visiting NMCR in 2010
A-H Ariocarpus – Hoodia
M-R Mammillaria – Ritterocereus
Trichocereus bridgesii – deserticola
Trichocereus macrogonus — pachanoi
Trichocereus poco — Trichocereus thelegonus (You are here)

I hope that you have enjoyed seeing NMCR!

Trichocereus-pachanoi-var-puquiensis-NMCR-2010_strip

NMCR 2010 macrogonus-pachanoi

Gallery

**A few more of the Trichocereus still at NMCR in 2010:**
macrogonus through pachanoi

More images of some of the cacti encountered during a visit to NMCR in 2010.
Most of the plants on this page were grown from seed planted in 1980 by Horst. The peculiar and misnamed “v. puquiensis” is the one exception.

Trichocereus macrogonus var. giganteus at NMCR in 2010.
Grown from seed planted in 1980 that came from Robert Field but in 2011 Robert Field told me he had no knowledge of this name. Field DOES have a Trichocereus macrogonus that his father acquired from Blossfeld’s Andean collecting expedition.
This looks very much like that Trichocereus macrogonus at Field’s. Notice that it almost lacks v-marks and only expresses them weakly? Compare to images of the Trichocereus macrogonus at Field’s in “The Macrogonus Onus” (forthcoming here) and at the Trichoserious website.

Horst also offered this:

Trichocereus macrogonus KK923

Mother plant in 2010 from Knize seeds that were planted in 1980.

Trichocereus pachanoi var. crassiarboreus

Labeled Trichocereus pachanoi var. crassiarboreus at NMCR. Grown from seeds obtained from Riviere de Carault.
Compare this to Tegelberg’s plant bearing the same name at the Huntington.

Trichocereus pachanoi var. puquiensis is clearly a mislabel but isn’t it beautiful!
It was obtained as a live plant from John Rahart in Quartzite at the Mineral Show.

Trichocereus-pachanoi-var-puquiensis-NMCR-2010

Trichocereus pachanoi Tarapoto

Grown from seed from Tarapota, Peru. Unfortunately Horst did not remember the source for the seeds and all of the planting records were destroyed by the water and mold that were mentioned earlier. (Their planting date not clear but it was well after 1980.)

And of course our old friend the pachanot was there.

The Trichocereus pachanot mothers at NMCR.

My visit is divided as :

Visiting NMCR in 2010
A-H Ariocarpus – Hoodia
M-R Mammillaria – Ritterocereus
Trichocereus bridgesii – deserticola
Trichocereus macrogonus — pachanoi (You are here)
Trichocereus poco — Trichocereus thelegonus

I hope that you enjoy seeing NMCR!

bona fide aguacolla flower at Cactus Country

P.C.Hutchison 1597

Posted on November 1, 2014 by admin

Trichocereus pachanoi P.C.Hutchison 1597

Trichocereus pachanoi Peru 57.0884.
Material came from Huancabamba Prov., Piura Dept., Peru. [Link 1] [Link 2]
Paul C. Hutchison collected this as live clones during the late 1950s.

Sadly the display specimens of P.C.Hutchison 1597 periodically experiences heavy predation by thieves and is removed from public display to enable it to recover and survive. Almost all Botanical Gardens have regular plant sales that make such thievery a crime that is directed against everyone.

“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 flowers – larger

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 to return to the smaller views):

Trichocereus bridgesii

Image

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.

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):

new growth

Image

The new growth on a pachanot.

This is a very typical new tip for a pachanot. Its no surprise this plant is so widely loved for its beauty.

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:

Trichocereus bridgesii & our pachanot

Image

Trichocereus bridgesii compared to our pachanot.
All of this set of images were taken of plants growing in Sonoma or Mendocino County, California.
In the first image the pachanot is on top, in the lower two images Trichocereus bridgesii is on top.

This last example shows the blackest wooly hair we have thusfar encountered on a pachanot flower. (See some short blackish hairs.)

See images of a few of bridgesii’s many forms

There are plenty of pictures of bona fide Trichocereus pachanoi flowers included in this article that can be compared to these two as well.

Things to notice: the degree and nature of hairs arising from the axils of the scales on the flowers, the appearance of the ovary and its degree of hairiness, the appearance of the scales and also the appearance of the sepals when the flower is fully open. If a person can view them first-hand or have matching pairs of images a lot more can be seen inside of the flower but this is not reliable from photographs. One thing that might be overlooked if unfamiliar with these plants is that in most cases only night-time or early morning images show undamaged interiors. Typically, as early as it is possible to get out and about, honey-bees or some other type of bee will start stripping them of all possible pollen leaving the stigma knocked down or to one side and the interior series of stamens sort of trampled in appearance. Sometime extremely so. Understanding this has occurred is really important if wanting to make sense out of comparing the interior flower parts.

This taken together with other observations of the morphology of their stems, spination & fruit, and reflection on the difference between those two sets on the interesting hybridization page lead me to suspect that the pachanot might be a hybrid between Trichocereus bridgesii and a Trichocereus pachanoi. At the very least those F1 hybrid sets suggest that the pachanot had something somewhere in its lineage that formed some rather familiar long yellow spines.

Assuming for a moment that it is a hybrid, it is also potentially possible that it was of natural occurrence, many naturally occurring cactus hybrids are known. One other plausible possibility is that it is a hybrid produced by a horticulturalist’s hands which they recognized for being a potential money maker and started its mass propagation and distribution.

The volume and extent of its distribution makes it clear that it entered horticulture through the hands of a major commercial grower so it is possible that there may still be a paper-trail (or someone’s memory) taking it back to its origin — assuming a person can first identify the point of entry into horticulture and all of the records or neurons involved are not already turned to dust. Maybe this will be found interesting enough to someday be looked into using DNA testing but for most botanists this is going to be a really trivial issue.

Some tangential images as well as the obviously pertinent ones may also shed some light on the subject of hybrids. You have no doubt already noticed the hybrid page but just to be sure here is another link.

Also it might be found interesting and useful to compare the flowers from assorted Trichocereus that appear to be closely related

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:

Trichocereus pachanoi or pachanoids?

Image

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.

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 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.)

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.

Seed-grown in Oz.

Seed-grown in USA (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.

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.

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

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”.)

Some more Trichocereus that were still at NMCR in 2010: from poco albiflorus through thelegonus.

A few more of the Trichocereus still at NMCR in 2010: macrogonus through pachanoi

Trichocereus pachanoi P.C.Hutchison 1597

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

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?“

Use your back button to return.

Or to go to:

“pachanoi or pachanot?“

**Some more Trichocereus that were still at NMCR in 2010:
from poco albiflorus through thelegonus.**

**A few more of the Trichocereus still at NMCR in 2010:**
macrogonus through pachanoi