Stenocereus Hystrix

[Eirias]

<!--
var SymRealOnLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//-->
In the plant sections of several large department-type
store in my area (and throughout the continental US), within the
'gardening' section of the store there are several small columnar cacti
for sale. Some of them are clearly Mammilaria spp., but several
of them are are Trichocereus spp., including T. Peruvianus.



Now I can identify a Peruvianus pretty well by eye, and I've
actually verified this spp. for other folks who were unsure (sometime
they were correct, and other times it was a similar-looking, but
unrelated spp.). This is all in spite of all the confusion this
spp. has created over the years with over-simplified identification
procedures and mis-identified specimens (occasionally for sale through
various ethnobotanical suppliers).

In fact, a very reliable cacti species database lists T.
peruvianus as a 'variety' or 'subspecies' of T. pachanoi, and not as an
entirely seperate spp. Considering also the large number of
Trichocereus spp. which possess only subtle physical differences and
identifying characteristics (and even within those spp. the rather
broad variation of forms, varieties, and subspecies), one can see how
correctly and properly identifying a given Trichocereus specimen can
become more and more difficult.



The point that this brings me to is-- just how broad are these
characteristics?? And even if the specimen in question is not
positively identified as the desired species, what is the likelihood of
it having a similar alkaloid profile???



A good illustration of the latter point involves a highly
reputable ethnobotanical supplier which received/collected a quantity
of cactus specimens and tissue which they were certain (or at least led
to believe) was T. peruvianus. All the positively-identifying
traits were present, or so they thought, until it was brought to their
attention that that cactus in question was indeed another species
altogether (albeit a related one), namely Stenocereus (Ritterocereus) hystrix, which is
native to the Carribean and not the Andean highlands. However,
upon bioassay research and careful testing via chromatography, it was
clear beyond any doubt that this species was indeed "active" and in
fact possessed a very simialr alkaloid profile and content to T.
peruvianus!



Basically I am considering obtaining some of these interesting
cacti from the dept. store I mentioned above for ornamental purposes,
but I would like to know exactly what they are!

God, it's even possible that they could even be hybrids, as there are two specimens look exactly like San Pedro cacti, except they possess very fine, tiny spines about 2-3 millimeters in length</span>. My experience (and the wisdom of others whom I trust on the matter) has always taught me that T. pachanoi NEVER has spines</span>-- so is this an entirely different spp., a hybrid, or an exception to the "rule of thumb"?

In addtion to those, there are about 4 of them that I am 99%
sure are peruvianus spp., and about 2 or 3 that my be T. bridgesii or
something like that. I am less confident in positively
identifying the ones that look like T. bridgesii, as this spp. is
markedly different in appearance than either T. peruvianus or T.
pachanoi, and there are several unrelated spp. of cacti that IMHO look
a lot like how T. bridgesii is supposed to appear.



So what's that point of all this? I suppose it's this--
besides hiring a botanist that specializes in the Cactaceae, or
undergoing a potnetialy risky subjective bioassay, how can one be sure,
or at least reasonably certain that they are dealing with a particular
given spp. that has been positively-identified correctly?



Perhaps another spin on this contemplative argument is this:

Although most psilocybin-active mushrooms are in the genus
Psilocybe (occasionally called Stropharia), they nearly all share
certain physical characteristics that are related to their alkaliod
content. For example, if a given mushroom yields a purple-brown
spore-print, has a gelatinous pellicle, and produces a bluing reaction
when handled or "bruised", is is very like a psilocybian (i.e.
psilocyin-containing) mushroom, regardless of the specific genus or
species. The bluing reaction in particular is a result of the
presence of concentrated amounts of indole-type alkaloids.

Now, could there be a certain set of physical traits and/or
characteristics involving cacti that could serve as indicators of the
presence of certain phenethylamine alkaloids?? Clearly their is a
lot of biomorphic diversity within the Cactaceae, however, there are
certainly traits that are, for example, more-or-less common to all
members of the genus Trichocereus.

Furthermore, I have heard both from cultivators of these cacti
as well as various lay researchers that the more potent specimens tend
to have a more "bluish" hue to their flesh-- similar to psilocybian
mushrooms. Could this possibly suggest a set of characteristics
that would allow one to possibly discern or determine if a given cactus
species or a particular specimen might be rich in certain alkaloids??

I am not jumping to any conclusions just yet, rather I am simply wondering about the potential for such a thing.


I'll try to post pics of the cacti I mentioned-- as I will
probably purchase them since they are affordable, interesting, and just
the right size to begin rapid growth, even if I am not quite 100%
positive about their identities!




<!--
var SymRealOnLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//-->

Edited by: Eirias