mexico-magico said:
Saludos
Check this 5 months pup.
The stalk that your pup is sprouting from looks like a genuine Pachanoi, very rounded in shape, glaucus blue/green flesh, deep set areoles, short spines...good stuff...
It can be very hard to tell these apart, the best way involves the flowers, pachanot has very hairy flower-base...
Though as I pointed out before, there is dispute of the "pachanot theory", personally I trust K. Trout, his publications have been an amazing resource for me, and have thus far been very accurate, but then I see things like this:
TROUT UPDATE 2014 — No such thing as "PC" or "pachanot"
Hell hath no fury like Trout after a thumbs down book review
Back in 2005 San Pedro book writer "Trout" was outraged by my thumbs down review. To get revenge he created webpages insisting that the San Pedro I grow and sell, the same ones pictured on his book cover, are NOT real San Pedro—they must be "pachanots."
Over the years his anti-San Pedro propaganda misled many newcomers visiting various cactus blogs. They, in turn, unwittingly spread his malicious misinformation. Trout & friends have tried to convince people that the San Pedro pictured in his book are the really the wrong ones (not pachanoi, but pachanots).
But recently a calm, intelligent individual refuted his absurd pachanot campaign.
http://www.sacredcactus.com/trouts_snout.htm
Honestly though, this person seems very angry with trout personally, and seems to attack trout more than his theory...
It looks like this guy's entire store of cacti were shown to be "pachanot", and he took it hard...
But honestly I can't weigh in on the situation, I don't know either party or what transpired between them...
I still keep trouts pachanot theory in mind, though I have seen true Pachanoi cacti display pachanot features and vis versa, I think the flower may be the "acid-test" in this situation, the low-mescaline USA grown "pachanot" will have long grey hairs covering the base of the flower, where true Pachanoi will have a smooth flower base or short dark hairs. ( Picture attached )
Though what it really comes down to is mescaline content...
Both Pachanoi and pachanot produce mescaline, the main difference seems to be the quantity produced...
Again, I really can't say what the deal is here, in my case I had to actually bioassay my cactus before I could be satisfied that it was in fact an Entheogenic Pachanoi, as for my other Pachanoi, I was promised it was "powerful" by a trusted friend.
...This is why I'm deciding to only go for macrogonus, peruvianus, or bridgesii from now on, avoiding this whole issue
I trust trout and appreciate all the work he has put in, I'm not saying this means he is always correct, but I am saying that based on the work he has done his opinion is valuable, I'm not sure who this other person is who he is in this dispute with, though this other person does attack trout more than his theory...
I don't know what to make of it all...but if I'm going to go out of my way to purchase a cactus, I'm going to buy another trichocereus to avoid this concern. Though if I come across a pachanoi or am giving one I will gladly care for it.
What do you guys think of the whole pachanot/Pachanoi debate?
I also see some ceaspitose lophs in your collection, no?
Interesting cactus set up...it's hard to tell from the photos, but that stalk on its side looks like a true Pachanoi, good stuff.
-eg
