How to recognize a pachanoi

[trucha]

As if I have all the time in the world....

I was wondering what features can reliably recognize a pachanoi.

[M S Smith]

I suggest you read your own books kt....

Trichocereus are the canines of the plant world. I think we need to look at finding acceptable terms simply so that we can know where talking about similar items. Chihuahua, Husky, Jack Russel, Bulldog, Great Dane, etc., all are used simply so that we know what sort of Canine we are referring to, but it doesn't mean they are a different species. Dogs in fact show a much greater degree of difference than observable in most of the Trichocereus we're being asking to set species limits on.

The fact that T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus in particular, two plants with great human interest, lack the degree of genetic isolation (and genetic age from its common predecessor) that would produce radical differences means that even if you were to say such and such a trait determines a "species" there are bound to be plants that exist that upset such distinct rules of identification. This unless you were to make the rules regarding identifiers so broad that they were meaningless.

There do appear to be plants that seem to bear some fairly distinct appearence that may be easily defined and nicely set as "species," but those plants that seem to be the ones that carry mescaline and have gained great human interest seem to fall outside of such easily defined species catagories.

I wish I could straighten this all out, or help you do so, but it is clear from your own words kt that you in fact know that you will be incapable of doing so yourself, based partially on some of the reasons I've just mentioned. I know I have maybe muddied the water with too much conjecture, but I fear that you may be setting too rigorous a standard not only on other or yourself, but on the plants themselves who aren't limited by the names and limitations of what is and what isn't a species we've place on them.

~Michael~

[trucha]

I not only have read my own books but hope I can outgrow my own limitations aand limited understandings as I expressed in them and I hope to someday learn much more than I ever thought was true.

Science and humans both progress by discovering where they were wrong and moving past that. You've helped me find what I consider to be two serious errors in San Pedro. One of them has actually now enabled the IOS to correct their labelling error that would otherwise continue to be perpetuated.

I hope I continue to find more by myself, with your input and with other people's input!

If I could learn that everything I have ever thought was wrong and could go on to create a better understanding that would totally rock.

You may be completely missing what I am trying to do here.

I have no interest in defining species or establishing their validity or lack thereof but rather in creating an understanding of what features cactus collectors use for identifying their plants when attaching names to them and how those features compare to what is published.

Those published accounts are where the names come from. (I don't have to think any of them to be species, subspecies or anything else to find value in understanding what those names are based on.)

Most importantly I hope to work with the COMMUNITY in getting some question asking stimulated.

There is no right and wrong in this. SOMEDAY maybe enough data can exist for a clear picture. I do not hold my breath while waiting but I am quite hopeful.

Right now I keep hearing the Standels' ancient hit Dirty Water playing on infinite repeat inside of my head.

You might want to stop taking both me and yourself so seriously and have more fun

Despite the trichs we know and love being mongrels I still think it is of value to be able to tell a Chihuahua apart from a Great dane in speech and not have to show someone a photo for them to understand me. My best dog ever was a pure and wonderful mutt I might add.

Play has value. Not just for fun but the best of discovery very often comes about not from stodgy serious scientists in white lab coats busily hustling about their day but from accidents, serendipity and righteous pursuits of thing unrelated by people who are just having fun with something that was a hobby for them or working in completely unrelated areas.

There are a lot of amazing people in Oz. Some of whom could teach both of us a shitload about the trichs if they realized we might hear them. This is no doubt true all over the planet.

I want to get people asking more questions, of me, of you, of themselves and of their plants.

That has value and power in and of itself. Especially if this process can empower the individual and get them to start questioning authority and seek answers in their own minds.

I live for THAT shit : )

This is not serious business - its just a silly joke we call cactus taxonomy. It aint a science. I can't say that often enough.

EVERYONE can participate in taxonomy despite the fact no one in the Kew gives a rat's ass about what we think.

I think I must annoy them at the Kew as I appear to have been sent to Coventry by that community. This bothered me at one point but now I realize I must be doing something right. Not that I am necessarily reaching the right conclusions but at least I am seemingly starting to ask the right questions.

You too are doing some good things but really you would do better to take yourself less seriously and start questioning the WHY of your conclusions rather than getting defensive about them. I am not meaning to tread on your toes here. If I did not value your mind and thoughts I would never have thought I should publish your book in hardcopy some years back. I still think I did a good thing.

I plan to post a lot more images. I need to do this from elsewhere or I will spend all my time watching that status bar load. Be patient with me. Play has value, I know I am repeating myself. There was a time when you and I had serious FUN tossing ideas around. Please don't take me or all of this so seriously. I think you will find in some months from now what I am trying to start will bear some fruit everyone may find quite tasty but we need to focus on making more compost first.

Please don;t mistake me playing the devil's advocate in this name game that I am doing for trying to say what is really right or wrong because I am not convinced that any of us know that yet. Myself included.

I promise you the plants do not care what we call them just so long as we care about them

If you or anyone wonders just how it was that the predominate clone came to be the predominate clone ponder this image (by anonymous who gave me permission to use it)

This is an image from a California wholesaler and their mass production pupping operation creating those nice fat pachanoi PC cuttings so many people root or root and sell. Those are pachanoi in the background too waiting their turn to be mass chopped for healing and distribution.

This is only one small part of one grower's operation.

[M S Smith]

kt, I'm fairly well convinced I take this whole matter a little "less serious" than youself. And I make conjectures not conclusions. The former are meant to be challenged.

I like the idea of what you are doing, but I don't think the plants are going to fit your descriptive catagories as nicely as you might like them to. I think it best to say there are a number of different complexes and these complexes have some degree of intergrade in nature due to man. I think we should be looking at what defines particular sorts of plants and not what defines them in particulars. If it isn't morphology which is important, and it is the flowers, as you have stated in the past, then you should only be discussing what flower "features can reliably recognize a pachanoi," but then you would be alone in the entheogenic cactus community in the depth of your knowledge, which I actually think you already are....so don't worry about my toes, they aren't even worthy of being stepped on.

~Michael~

Edited August 21, 2007 by M S Smith

[trucha]

Perhaps true but its the intermediates that cause problems in recognition not the ones that had the description written.

Pachanoi is supposed to have spines of dissimilar lengths and no clear centrals. It can have as few as 0 or 1 spine though which confuses people.

Its spines tend to be short (generally less than an inch or so but they can be an inch or so). This also confuses people if they don't realize they can be this long.

There is also a mark of some type above the smallish areoles. Maybe a small v maybe a horizontal line but generally a transverse depression of some sort that looks like a mark.

You mistake my question asking for taking myself seriously.

I perhaps am in these posts using more rigor in applying names that relate to their descriptions than you but if someone tells me why I'm wrong I like to listen. If they can make sense I have no fixation on any conclusion other than its nice if our names can fit the descriptions. When they don't new names are a good thing. Certainly better than redefining old names without defining why this is sound practice.

Names were created by someone based on something.

Names I see some people using seem to be based on little to nothing that is clear.

I'm trying to figure out where people's new versions of old names come. It seems pculiar this is not seen as something positive.

This is not science its just questions about where our names come from.

[M S Smith]

Just to help the thread along a bit.

Here's a couple T. pachanoi from Ecuador. The plant in the second photo doesn't appear to be rooted, but rather just set standing up. The flattened tip damage makes me think it might have been shoved in some sort of a box or container.

Notice the spines on both of these and then compare to the NYBG deposit (which I made to scale).

~Michael~

[trucha]

Its worth considering all of the spines on the NY voucher.

Most are really short.

For a botanical voucher one tries to capture the extremes whenever possible.

Its not uncommon for any of the large specimens of the pachanoi predominate cultivars to put on such long spines (the longest up to 1-2 cm, when present, according to Br & R but I;ve seen them reach 1.5 inches personally and their voucher has one almost an inch and a quarter long) and the longest are often near the base of the plant on shorter spined forms. They are usually just occasional though and not the bulk of the spines except on some of the pachanois in Oz (at least what I say in NSW) where 1-2 cm spines are not uncommon on the entire plants as the longest spine per areole.

Lots of people get confused by this since they don't get to see large many branched pachanois which is usually where the longest spines show up on the pachanoi here in the US. Plus many people in the US never get to see a longer spined pachanoi in general. (This is one more reason I think the Huancambamba thing is a pachanoi intermediate rather than a peruvianus. The flower pictures you include here are nice for comparison to the flower pictures I posted there.)

I'll dig up some photos of these longer spines near the base of pachanoi PC and get them uploaded.

Its worth not extrapolating this too far or making it a requirement of a accurately recognized pachanoi though since pachanoi can show a range of spine expression that includes longer spines and very short spines. Carlos Ostolaza wrote a nice description of pachanoi based on wild specimens (which included floral dissections of many flower in order for him to create the single best description yet in print for pachanoi) and noted the spines to be very small or even absent in what he studied in Peru. The same is true of images included in Wade Davis' bits on shamanic use, Schultes & Hofmann's images of plants and plants harvested for market and also in Glass-Coffin's sweet book the Gift of Life showing pachanoi harvested for use by several different shamans. Plenty of longer spined pachanoi do exist of course.

Do you know who took these images? I'd love to contact them to learn a bit more and get their permission to include them in print.

The spines lin the images do look longer than what Britton & Rose discussed so those could be pachanoi intermediates similar to the Strybig thing or Huancabamba.

Edited September 3, 2007 by trucha

[Gunter]

I think of pachanoi as a short spined phenyotype. I correlate it as one of the heirloom forms of san pedro.

The other three heirlooms to me are the bridgesii and the thick blue peruvianus, all cultivated in the Andes. I have my own descp...

rough features : pach 7 average ribs +/-2 ribs variance, shorter spines

peruv 7 ribs +/- 2, long spines, thicker stem,

bridgesii 6 ribs +/- 2, longer spines, centrals and radials often indistinct.

I'll leave out other details the glaucous coat etc,, the descriptions are range related for heirloom forms, not grex.

Scop is novel enough though I'd suggest it is one of the more curious selections, though I think several pachanoi correlate phenotypes do come from bolivia.

Edited November 18, 2007 by Archaea

[M S Smith]

Here's a little something I wrote at The Nook (here) regarding the so-called "short spined T. peruvianus" and which I thought might be of interest to those who aren't members. Sorry if a repeat of ideas already familiar. I put it here as I think this "species" is in fact just a form of T. pachanoi.

~Michael~

***

I've talked about this elsewhere in maybe some more depth, but let me see what I can do to clarify the issue of the "short spined T. peruvianus" again.

The name "short spined T. peruvianus" is a name I made up myself when I got the plant in the following photo from Cactus Corral (CC). At the time CC was trying to get rid of a lot of its larger plants and I believe this particular clone was then sold to California Cactus Center (CCC) who quickly started selling the identical clone, also calling it its original name of simply "T. peruvianus."

When I got the plant it was simply called "T. peruvianus," and because I didn't want to change the species name, but find a way to differentiate it from what was generally called T. peruvianus at the time, I called it the "short spined T. peruvianus." At the time the following sort of plant was the most common one being referred to as T. peruvianus.

Now I've argued quite actively that the plant above isn't T. peruvianus, but rather more along the lines of T. cuzcoensis. Since then plants similar to the one immediately below have been in my estimate properly regarded as T. peruvianus.

So now you can see that this last plant, the proper T. peruvianus, and the one in the first photo, the "short spined T. peruvianus," aren't the same with just a difference in the spines, and it took a bit more thinking for me to figure it all out.

At the same time as the really spiney plant in the second photo was being called T. peruvianus the following plant was consided an accurate representation of T. pachanoi.

Currently though I don't think this plant immediately above, commonly referred to as the "Backeberg clone" or "Predominant cultivar" (both names whose origin resides in K. Trout), is an accurate representation of T. pachanoi as I haven't found it represented at all in the ranges known for T. pachanoi. The plant in the following photos are a good representations of what I believe T. pachanoi to be:

T. pachanoi "Kimnach":

T. pachanoi from Matucana, Peru:

T. pachanoi from Wildflowers of Heaven:

T. pachanoi from South Bay nursery:

From this you can see that T. pachanoi is not the same plant as the so-called "Backeberg clone" in fourth photo, but you can also see that the "proper" T. pachanoi has some natural degree of variation. So in the end I think the plant in the first photo, the so called "short spined T. peruvianus" is nothing other than another variation of T. pachanoi as they are represented in Ecuador and Peru, but since this "short spined" plant is somewhat distinct in its formation, particularly regarding the spine formations, there is probably enough to simply say it is a "clone" and make an attempt to only apply the name to those which are this particular clone. Unfortunately is what we have is a lot of people calling whatever variation of proper Ecuador/Peru T. pachanoi the "short spined T. peruvianus" because they still consider the so-called "Backeberg clone" an accurate representation of T. pachanoi, this when it clearly is not.

I think any plant being called the "short spined T. peruvianus" should....1) be the proper clone, and....2) not be thought of as T. peruvianus at all, but rather as a particular form of the variable T. pachanoi.

I've argued elsewhere that there appears to be a nice intergrade of the quite spineless and relatively non-glaucous T. pachanoi you can find in Ecuador and northern Peru and the long spined very glaucus T. peruvianus of central Peru. I think that mans interests in these plants had carried T. pachanoi south and that it has had ample opportunity to interbreed with central Peru's T. peruvianus to create intergrades. As for these intergrades, well I think we commonly call them T. macrogonus. But since the name T. macrogonus on many points seems invalid (something Trout and I have both agreed up) the most we can do if we want to stick to the names considered acceptatable is try to divy up what degree of spination and degree of glaucusness puts any particular plant either in T. pachanoi or in T. peruvianus. I personally lean more towards maintaining T. peruvianus as being more locallized in central peru and of a particular form while considering T. pachanoi much more variable, from nearly spineless to having spines of some length. Therefore I am more inclined to calling more plants, even if of wide variability, T. pachanoi than T. peruvianus.

~Michael~

[incognito]

 

<___base_url___>/uploads/emoticons/default_blink.png<___base_url___>/uploads/emoticons/default_wacko.png<___base_url___>/uploads/emoticons/default_blink.png<___base_url___>/uploads/emoticons/default_wacko.png

 

[Gunter]

I think that there is room in pachanoi for both the SSP and the PC, other than that I agree with you.

I think that you will find or have found that there is no single solid pachanoi phenotype, but rather a range exists that is acceptable as being referred to by the epithet. I dare say the same is true for any epithet in this group, perhaps now we finally agree on most taxonomic aspects of the group.

[trucha]

I'm puzzled why they (including the pc) don't all fit nicely into pachanoi?

Please don't take this the wrong way Michael but do you know any botanists who are currently willing to take time to discuss this subject or other areas of the trichs with you?

I do read my own stuff. I have to to proof it. I'm always happy to learn where I may be wrong and correct myself if that turns out to be the case.

BTW I was not the origin of the name "Backeberg's clone" except to some readers of my writings. That name has been floating around for years among West Coast commercial San Pedro growers. I may have been the first one to put it in print?

My personal take is the main mescaline containing northern forms (including pachanoi, cuzcoensis, huanucoensis, pallarensis and peruvianus and others) are all most likely subsets within bridgesii or "lageniformis". (Not that it is where they all started but rather they are all to closely related to be called species and it is the oldest name considered acceptable since the Rules of Nomenclature almost demands we shitcan macrogonus due to it confusedly being applied to more than one thing without clarity. You might be amused that as far back as the 1930s Backeberg rejected peruvianus as a species for being indistinctly separable from macrogonus.)

Eventually the genetics work ongoing in Zurich will be published. Maybe then we will less resemble those proverbial blindmen arguing about what an elephant looks like.

NO ONE I know who is a professional botanist can even define what is meant by a species when it comes to cacti. "Its entirely political" or "its just opinions" is almost the uniform reponse. Gordon Rowley's comment is "Its all in the head"

However, some interesting facts should be added to Michael's comments.

The monstrose pachanoi sold by California Cactus (aka the short spined peruvianus) apparently came from the Huntington not Cactus Corral. Over the years they have supplied plants to the HBG and the latter trades material with them and this has occurred for many years. Their mother plant is no longer there by the way (its been chopped into pieces to satisfy the demand of all of its buyers) and their present peruvianus is quite long spiny.

Wildflowers of Heaven stopped doing seed business with Knize in part due to the lots of his "pachanoi" seed growing these plants. They do not believe them to be correctly identified as pachanoi. Those grown out by WOH grew to be indistinguishable from some of the KK242 Knize also sold them. No pachanoi cutting from Knize resembles these. Nor do pachanoi plants in use by shamans in Peru.

Myron called his plant a pachanoi based on his agreement with the perceived synonymity of pachanoi and peruvianus. (He would have called any peruvianus a pachanoi.) If that plant shown had been grown in more sun it would look like just another peruvianus. I think I've posted images of that here already?

The pachanoi Matucana does not at all resemble the pachanoi I have seen pictures of at Matucana. Those are VERY short spined.

Viewers are going to really going to do a doubletake when I get time to post images of the old German macrogonus clone.

GIGO.

Love to you all.

kt

PS I came online specifically to answer an email from spunwhirling but the mailserver won't let me answer it directly and it does not seem to be in my PMs.

Please let me now where I can respond to if you want an answer to your question. Thanks!

[Teotzlcoatl]

What do the actual plants shamans use look like?

Does anybody have any pics of Trichocereus KNOWN to be used in shamanic practices IN South America?

If anybody has a pic of the "T. bridgesii Baker" cactus from Sacred Succulents- I believe it is from an actual peruvian shaman's garden.

What do real South American Trichcoereus cacti look like?!?

Dude you just threw a whole wrech in my understanding of Trichocereus species.

So pachanoi=peruvianus... That's what your saying?

Personally I like Mr.Smith's veiw much more.

It's much clearer and makes distictions between plants.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Teotz'

[paradox]

Dude you just threw a whole wrech in my understanding of Trichocereus species.

haha, sorry if i'm littering this thread, but thats funny!

[trucha]

Ptolemy painted a nice clear picture of how the spheres rotated around us. Nice, neat, orderly. And lots more comforting than having a real view of the "heavens" ;-)

Sure, I have images of the San Pedro cacti in shamanic use. I THINK I may have already posted some here in the past.

The appearance of Knize's KK339 and KK591 cuttings I know I have posted here is pretty typical for what is used by MOST shamans but there is suggestions more than a handful of species are used (three of which are not trichs). I have images of those but hesitate to post them yet as I am not yet totally convinced the claim is valid.

I will try to get something with typical pachanoi as are consumed in Peru posted either here or at the TN site as soon as I can.

Locateable images that are in print: Schultes and Hofmann show images in several works (Botany & Chemistry, Plants of the Gods and elsewhere), Douglas Sharon shows images in his book on The Magic Cactus and one can also be seen in his article (not book) on Eduardo Calderon, Bonnie Glass-Coffin shows images in the Gift of Life (a fascinating look at the women among the San Pedro healers in Peru), Mario Polia shows images in Sangre del Condor.

There are also a host of habitat images of assorted trichs from Peru to Argentina here now that I have not had time to do anything with.

What is either taquimbalensis or tacaquirensis appears to be being used in Bolivia for making brew based on evidence a friend encountered last year.

BTW My conclusions about how these seem to relate is not based on skin color or spination which are variable features and environmentally influenced but rather on their floristic and fruiting features. The main thing I do know is that much more study than conclusions are needed right now. There seems to be nothing capable of establishing true specific stature for at least most of these.

That is not true for many of the Echinopsis species however as substantial and seperably definable floristic differences can be found for many including a large number of the nonpachanoid/peruvianoid trichs. Google Bob Schick's Echinopsis Revisited for a really nice piece of work on this (soon to have a new version out!)

it is worth commenting that plenty of intergeneric plant hybrids are known as well as interspecific (for instance CuppressusXCyperus). The notion that a species can only breed with itself and create true offspring is not held by a single botanist I have ever spoken with. Its a lot more useful concept in zoology than botany.

Claims of shamanic use for W Baker 5452 have been made but this is anecdotal and lacking any data. (A friend of mine is a good friend of Bill Baker and was my source of info.)

The collection was vouchered as T. pachanoi but is clearly a bridgesii. I had never heard it said it came from a shaman's garden though. I will try to learn more about this.

I KNOW I have posted images of it here both normal and monstrose.

Edited January 10, 2008 by trucha

[trucha]

Its probably a good idea to add a few comments and images.

Michael has made a lot out of that one single cluster of spines in the NY herbarium sheet.

I would suggest he has extrapolated it quite far in terms of redefining pachanoi sensu MS Smith.

I will come back to this in a moment but might add that if longer spined pachanoi predominate in the areas tourists photograph one reason could be selective harvest of short spined forms. I have heard it said by several travellers and by Carlos Ostolaza (when he was kind enough to visit me a few years back) that over harvesting for consumption (for locals and for a huge and still growing tourist dosing industry) accompanied by an inexplicable lack of replanting or leaving adequate biomass for regeneration has wiped out many populations of pachanoi.

One person I have corresponded with described seeing a large truck with a flatbad being loaded with tonnage bound for making brew he thought was intended for sale to shamans. That occurrence was several decades ago.

Let's go back to the long/short spine topic

With very few exceptions, almost no one I am aware of, not BR & R, Backeberg or Ritter (or even me) has said pachanoi cannot have long spines. None however have described the longer spined expression as the actual norm.

All including Br & R has also said it very often can have no spines (in 1920 terminology this is what the word "wanting" means - it still does but the word is not used in botany as much anymore)

Their comment was: "spines often wanting, when present few, 3 to 7, unequal, the longest 1 to 2 cm. long, dark yellow to brown"

In Backeberg and Werdermann 1931 Werdemann describes pachanoi as having "blue frosted young branches" and "spines often especially in the lower part of the plant are very absent, if present 3-7, at the most 2 cm long, usually far shorter, yellow or brown" [in case my translation is off the original is "im Neutrieb blau bereift" and "Stacheln oft besonders im unteren Teile der Pflanze ganz fehlend, wenn vorhanden 3-7, höchstens 2 cm lang, meist viel kürzer, gelb oder braun"]

In his 1937 seed catalog Backeberg actually describes his pachanoi as being "spineless" (Its in German and in English)

Carlos Ostolaza (a Peruvian surgeon who most people consider a Peruvian cactus expert) described pachanoi as being blue-green and frosted at first. His description of the spines is "very small or completely absent" [in the 1984 CSSJA 56: 102-104]

The primary form used by shamans or at least the main form depicted in the literature and encountered by friends is the form that has mostly short spines.

This is what is presented as the typical drug form as depicted in the hands of Eduardo Calderon, in Cruz Sanchez' 1946 thesis, in Polia, in Sharon, in Glass-Coffin and in Schultes and Hofmann. Do recall that Schultes was a PhD botanist and labelled their photos pachanoi not peruvianus. It could well be they took the picture at Huncabamba but I do not know. However, I have also never met a botanist who does not think the Huancabamba short spined peruvianus is not just another pachanoi (I agree with this BTW) It was named as a peruvianus by its Dutch collector who is not so far as I know a botanist.

The very short spined plants are also what friends have encountered and ingested being served to them by shamans in both Ecuador and in Peru. I do not suggest that peruvianus is not also employed by at least some shamans. Bridgesii does not appear to be used sacramentally outside of Miguel Kavlin's "ceremonialist" group or at least this is what the literature and travellers suggest but we easily may not know of other people who use it sacramentally. Plenty of people do use it for recreational purposes in Bolivia and in northern Argentina though. Also indicated by the literature and travellers.

Back to Britton & Rose

Below I took the liberty of making a composite of the NY herbaria.

I also inserted the scale from each sheet to permit accurate comparisons.

I'd suggest viewing this at its maximum size.

On the left is pachanoi. On the right is peruvianus.

Notice how nice long spines are present on the all of the intact areoles of peruvianus (some were cut off in the slicing process)?

Notice how many long spines are on the areoles of the two slices of pachanoi? (0)

Below them are three sections of flesh showing three different appearing areoles. One has very long spines as certainly can occur even on the shortest spined plants once old (usually near the base but sometimes on new tips if the plant is large)

However, the other two examples have extremely short spines just like the two slices. Those two strips likely are indicative of the smallest spines they could find or an example of no spines and the other as a typical example of areoles (including max, min and norm is a common if not recommended practice in herbaria preparation)

Now lets look at Backeberg's view of the pachanoi plant. Backeberg clearly states this particular plant was used for making a drink that was employed due to its contained alkaloids.

Below are 4 images taken from Die Cactaceae

This is what Backeberg's pachanoi looks like (its on the left and Backeberg's view of peruvianus is on the right in the top image).

Bear in mind that like so many of his flower photos, Backeberg or someone has doctored the details of his flower images with a pencil.

I probably should not include this as it is still under copyright (for two more years) but below is Ritter's view of Peruvian pachanoi. I will delete it within a few days for that reason

Keep in mind also that Ritter viewed peruvianus as nothing more than a more robust and stouter spined pachanoi form precisely due to the existence of plants such as Michael shows above in this thread. Jens Madsen (Flora of Ecuador) agreed with him as did David Hunt initially (in his first CITES Cactaceae Checklist) although the latter now separates them.

The next image is of two Ecuadorian collections from Knize. I might add that this is Knize's normal pachanoi provided as live cuttings.

I hate using anything from Knize due to his unreliability but these are common in Ecuador and are what friends visiting Loja last year witnessed being brewed prior to them imbibing. Interestingly Sharon & Bussman could find no evidence of san pedro use in that same area and described people as not wanting to discuss the topic which leaves me wondering how they were perceived in their process of questioning shamans as SEVERAL separate friends experienced San Pedro there last year.

KK339 was claimed by Knize to have been collected from Britton & Rose's type locality and, except for that one spiny areole, does nicely match the herbaria of theirs. KK591 was said to have come from Loja.

The next image is one of Knize's pachanois (left) compared to pachanoi PC. The distinctness is one of Michael's most important observations I think although I have not reached the exact same conclusions as he has.

The next image is of a pachanoi growing at Matucana. Photo shared with me by a friend requesting anonymity. Notice that on the entire plant only one tip has visible spines. I am trying to get permission to post another closer view of this same material taken by another friend.

The next image is of pachanoi plants growing in a Peruvian shaman's garden deliberately cultivated for use. Notice how many have long spines? (0)

The next image is an interesting old pachanoi collection growing in Oz (the only one exactly like this I have encountered there but then again I have only spent a total of less than 8 weeks in Oz split between two visits).

To me this one is interesting as it marries features of typical Peruvian pachanoi and the pachanoi PC.

Michael and Archaea both always make lots of good observations and have good minds (and I certainly do like and respect them both - I've considered Michael to be a friend for some years now) but both IMHO tend to want to connect dots prematurely or selectively or try to redefine things idiosyncratically rather than wholistically. Its just human nature to want to understand things with clarity not a fault.

Archaea makes a really good point though (I paraphrase) that the bridgesii/pachanoi/peruvianus/macrogonus complex needs a new name with them all defined at a subspecific stature.

Edited January 11, 2008 by trucha

[M S Smith]

Lots of what I've said in posts #30 and #31 at the following link covers my postion so please have a look...

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...25&start=25

Well....I've made a lot less of the NY herbarium sheet that you suggest, nor have I discounted longer spines on T. pachanoi. Certainly the disk of photos I sent you of plants in Ecuador and Peru provides adequate evidence that discounting longer spines on T. pachanoi is impossible. Many of these photos have been shared in the "habitat" thread at The Nook and once at a high speed location I will share some here (though I will be less inclined to offer the protections you may like). And you may be happy to know kt that I have collected many more photos that will be passed on in time...I just keep finding more.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Here's a few T. pachanoi from Ecuador and Peru, some of which have longer spines just to show that I'm not too ignorant on the matter. I'll show some with flowers too since they should be of value to kt.

[trucha]

Michael,

Am I really wording things that badly?

I could have sworn I said almost no one discounts there are longer spined pachanois? I think that I have even had this point of view (agreeing with you) expressed in print since the first edition of Sacred Cacti was put out in 1997.

That was not my point at all. My simple attempt is to try to illustrate that the available evidence indicates the most commonly consumed form of the plant is not the long spined ones. Nor was most of what was seen by Britton and Rose or by Backeberg or Ostolaza and others.

Please understand I am not at all saying or trying to imply there is any shortage of long spined plants that are pachanoi. I belief they exist, Britton and Rose di and Backeberg and Ritter did. We have no disagreement anywhere there.

I do suspect that a very plausible reason longer spined forms get more commonly photographed (especially in publicly accessible areas) is that the shorter spined ones get harvested more readily and easily. Call me a cynic. Its a rare botanical garden that can maintain an intact and unmolested plant of a spineless pachanoi.

Interestingly, by all accounts potency differences between the typical form employed by shamans is consistently reported to be substantially superior to the pc.

To me sorting out the origins of the pc is among the most fascinating of the topics we discuss. Natural hybrid, riomizquiensis, horticultural creation or wild collection, I have yet to find anyone who knows but certainly plan to keep looking. If I someday meet someone who tells me it is a hybrid of riomizquiensis and bridgesii I would not be startled but at this point I see no reason to not think it a pachanoi although I certainly will maintain entertaining the doubt you hold.

It would be awesome if some person out there was in the Vista area and could help as I can only really work on this when I can create time and means to drive to Southern California and interview people and/or look at plants.

Edited January 12, 2008 by trucha

[M S Smith]

Looks like my own misunderstanding of what you were saying...sorry, my bad. How about some more photos of T. pachanoi in habitat! These all in Ecuador.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Now how about some from Peru! I have many more I'll save for another day.

~Michael~

[KlUe]

Now how about some from Peru! I have many more I'll save for another day.

~Michael~

Michael, love the pics.

I've GOT to visit Peru in the near future.

KlUe

[M S Smith]

Here's some T. pachanoi in Dept. Cuzco. The last two photos show how commercial some of the San Pedro and Ayahuasca "trade" has become, and the text cracks me up as I don't suspect most of the idea in it are traditional, especially the mention of "Atlantis."

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

How can I forget these two from Peru, Dept Lima, Huarochirí Province, townlet of Linday. The third photo is also of a plant in Huarochirí, but I am not sure of the specific location.

~Michael~

[trucha]

Interestingly Carlos Ostolaza rejects the long spined pachanois as hybrid populations and insisted to me that hybrid populations should be disregarded in taxonomy. Not real helpful in reality.

The photo below may help illustrate why the pc is so common in the US

Photo was by a friend requesting anonymity.

This is just one curing table of one vendor (you can see another in the background). There are many more commercial growers beyond this one.

[M S Smith]

How is it even possible for Carlos to say what is and what isn't a hybrid when the plant has a history with humans for at least 3,000 years? Maybe before long we we see tables full of the non-PC T. pachanoi.

~Michael~