Trichocereus, A Tale of the Cacti by Paul Gardner

I've structured this article in two parts, the first is for the data nerd in me. It's my attempt at bringing together descriptions and identification techniques which will enable us to identify the cacti we find and possibly to identify other species which might be worthy of further investigation.

Go to the Species Key

Go to the Species Descriptions

Go to the Alkaloids List

As I said, there is no attempt at making this a definitive work and is basically just a series of guesses based on the information that I've come across so, like anything else on the Internet, it should be taken with large amounts of skepticism and doubt. Do your homework, follow the spirit of your own path and by all means let me know if I need to make a correction. I'd like to get this right.

Trust no one little marmoset, no one...

According to Backeberg B76, the genus Trichocereus is mainly distinguished from it's cactus brothers and sisters by it's funnelform, nocturnal flower. This presents a serious dilemma to collectors and enthusiasts since the odds of catching one in bloom are extremely low, thus we're forced to identify any potential additions to our collections based on their physical characteristics. The problem with this is that Trichocerei vary greatly in appearance - while all are basically columnar there are tall ones, short ones, fat ones, skinny ones and in-between ones. Some form vast colonies while others are solitary tubes of cactus juice. Compounding this nightmare, Trichocerei bare many of the same characteristics as some of their close relatives (Echinopsis, Helianthocereus and Weberbauerocereus), so much so that a debate rages among those who give a darn about such things as to whether there should be a genus called Trichocereus at all, some would prefer to lump them into Echinopsis. I have absolutely no op inion on that but for the purposes of this article I'll be calling them Trichocereus. That'll show 'em.

So just what are you supposed to do when you're at the garden center and an attractive cactus does the "Pssst, hey big boy/girl, take me...Now!"? Do you ignore the brazen creature or do you think to yourself "Hmmm, self, would a monetary transaction now propel me into a mind blowing experience later?" Just how do you know what you're buying? Well, first off, nothing beats a lot of experience. Once you actually see some of these beauties in the flesh identifying them later gets much easier. There truly is no substitute for first hand knowledge. Unfortunately if you're stuck in some dog-forsaken place that doesn't have a well stocked botanical garden you're going to be seriously out of luck. Sure there's the library - you remember them, that place in school with the books that were out of date even when we had a first lady named Mamie? They're great but, more often than not, if they have any cacti books at all the pictures are in black and white and taken from a great distance. So what's the ethnobo tanist to do?

Fortunately we can all be assisted by work done by others (ah, the glory of the Internet!). Britton & Rose BR63 developed a key to the species which is useful in identifying just what you're looking at. Unfortunately at the time they developed it they were only acknowledging 19 species of Trichocerei. As you can see from the Species Descriptons, I've got over 75 cacti that have at one time or another been labeled Trichocereus, so this key is only a starting point. What needs to happen [hint, hint] is for some enterprising individual to link the non-listed species from their descriptions and photos with the 19 Trichocerei that are listed and place them into the chart in the appropriate slot. Be that as it may, they did get 5 out of ~13 of the "known" mescaline containing Trichocerei so what are you complaining about?

Go to the Species Key

Uh huh...

So..."This newfangled key is all well and good," you say (or maybe not, just go with me on this) "but the Trichocereus I'm trying to identify doesn't fit into one of it's all too pat categories. What now?"

Now it gets a little harder. I've taken the liberty of using Backeberg B76 and Britton & Rose's BR63 descriptions, "translated" and consolidated them so they would fit into the format I use in the Species Descriptions. The thing for you to do now is to figure out the basics of your cactus (i.e., body style, number of ribs, how the areoles (the thing the spines come out of ) and spines are configured and if you're lucky enough, the shape and color of the flower), match those with the descriptions and there you have it. Of course, this is ludicrously oversimplified, trained professionals have a difficult time separating these things, we amateurs are really going to have to put some time into it if we're going to try to ID our cacti ourselves. However, the rewards are many if we get it right. Not only will you avoid accidentally poisoning some defenseless mammal with dangerous alkaloids, you might just be able to spot that needle in the haystack at your local MegaGlobal Garden Co., Inc.(tm).

Go to the Species Descriptions

As you can see, many of the "descriptions" are blank. Basically what I've done is taken every species of Trichocereus I've ever run across, even if it's actually some other species like Echinopsis, and included it here. The thought is that if any of you out there, dear readers, have any more information or can point me to a source that does we can gradually fill the Species Description chart in to completion.

Let all the poisons that lurk in the skin hatch out...

There are all sorts of lists floating around out there that name the "known" mescaline containing Trichocerei, Ott O96 lists 12 species, the Natural High FAQs typically use Ott's 12 and add Trichocereus scopulicola. Studying these 13 a little more closely uncovers several interesting points that I think deserve to be brought up.

Go to the Alkaloid List

Eight of the species seem to have solid scientific corroboration of a religiously desirable alkaloid content. They are T. bridgesii, T. macrogonus, T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus (although this one has dueling studies, one found the evil alkaloid, the other didn't), T. taquimbalensis, T. terscheckii, T. validus and T. werdermannianus. With the exception of T. terscheckii, which has 14, all of these have 10 or fewer ribs and generally conform to Agurell's notion that the mescaline containing Trichocerei all have a stem and are candelabra-like.

I mention the notion of rib count to offer speculation as to the possible significance of the much coveted 4 ribbed T. pachanoi to the curanderos of Peru. I wonder if the fact that the most entheogenic Trichocerei have fewer than 10 ribs was part of the knowledge base that was imparted to the novice as a part of his/her training and, as an outgrowth of that, fewer ribs began to gain a certain mystique, if only as a one upmanship, bragging rights sort of thing? Whether this mystique is justified is unknown to myself, studies do not include the rib count of their specimens, heck, they only rarely include the age of the stock they are testing (a very important statistic if you ask me).

Two species contain extremely small to trace quantities of mescaline, T. cuzcoensis and T. fulvilanus. Of the two, if one deserves to be tested again I think it would be T. cuzcoensis as it does fit the desired morphology, indeed if you plot the 8 species listed above on Britton & Rose's original key you find T. cuzcoensis between T. macrogonus and T. peruvianus. It's possible that since so little is known about the specimens that were tested there may be good cause to give this one another go. Morphologically speaking, T. fulvilanus is a long shot at any thing other than trace amounts IMHO.

Unfortunately I have no idea why T. scopulicola appears on these lists. Not only am I unable to find even a description of this species, I've been unable to turn up any studies that comment on it's alkaloid content. I suspect this one is a true Internet baby, perhaps there's a report out there somewhere, if there is I'd sure like to see it.

T. strigosus is also a bit of a mystery at the moment since the only study I can find, A71, lists hordenine as it's sole alkaloid. The study cited by Ott is from an Argentinean Journal that has so far eluded me so it's entirely possible this species does contain the dreaded alkaloid but it remains to be seen. However, if one were to base our speculation purely on morphology, T. strigosus would not be a likely candidate for the list.

T. spachianus offers a more disturbing scenario. Ott O96 cites a study by Pummangura P82 as the source for his placement of this species on his list. Not only does this study quite clearly state that T. spachianus does not contain mescaline (citing earlier studies), it's used as the control cactus for it's investigation into whether alkaloids move through a mescaline-containing cactus and into grafted cuttings of non-mescaline containing cactus. (For the record, they don't). Why Ott is citing this article is a complete mystery and it's hoped that it's some sort of editing error and perhaps there is a study out there that he intended to cite asserting that T. spachianus does contain mescaline. I sort of doubt it though, as again it's morphology is way out from what we would expect a true carrier to look like.

Of course, just because somebody published it in a study doesn't make it true, T. peruvianus is a perfect example. One study finds mescaline, the other doesn't. I would like to strongly encourage all future researchers to provide much more information about their specimens, age particularly. Since it's generally agreed that alkaloid production is a defense mechanism for the plant I think in this instance we can draw an analogy from our own human experience and apply it to Trichocereus (dangerous anthropomorphism I know but go with me...). I know that I have many more defense mechanisms now than when I was a child, why wouldn't this be the same for a plant? Additionally, I believe that among peyoteros it's generally accepted that the oldest L. williamsii plants offer the most bang for the buck. Testing a year old seedling would strike me as a gesture in futility, just as comparing a 3 year old T. peruvianus to a 15 year old T. pachanoi might be extraordinarily misleading.

Who then are the likely suspects for further research? My hero, K. Trout T97, offers up two that are morphological candidates, T. puquiensis and T. santaensis. I would also include T. chalaensis, T. glaucus, T. knuthianus, T. schoenii, T. tarmaensis, T. trichosus and T. tulhuayacensis in the list of possible alternate sacraments based on their morphology. It's interesting to note that T. santaensis and T. schoenii both have "V"-notches above their areoles just like their cousin, T. peruvianus.

Write no more about Trichocereus, write no more...

The study and religious use of Trichocereus has been going on for thousands of years whether our governments are willing to acknowledge it or not. Access to this accumulated knowledge is now available in the farthest reaches of our troubled planet and should be treated with extreme reverence and caution, at all levels of our existence. Acted on responsibly we may be able to save an endangered, spiritually and culturally significant species and in the process expand the range of other plant teachers. Treated like a "woohoo, get high!" party drug we might lose not just the plants but even more of our ever dwindling freedoms. I vote to use them wisely.

Copyright 1998, Paul Gardner. Feel free to use the information contained herein, God n' Guvment knows I don't have any claim to that but if you use my words and get paid for it, expect to hear from me. Otherwise, knock yourselves out. Copy away!

References

A69.2 - Agurell, S. Cactaceae alkaloids, I Lloydia 32(2): 206-216

A71 - Agurell, S. "Cactaceae alkaloids x. Alkaloids of Trichocereus species and some other cacti Lloydia 34(2): 183-187

B76 - Backeberg, Curt Cactus Lexicon (Kakteenlexikon) 1976, Originally published 1966

BR63 - Britton, N.L. & J.N. Rose "The Cactaceae - Descriptions and Illustrations of Plants of the Cactus Family, Vol. 1 & 2" 1963 Republication of 1937 2nd Ed.

O96 - Ott, Jonathan "Pharmacotheon" 1996

P82 - Pummangura et al "Cactus Alkaloids, LI., Lack of Mescaline Translocation in Grafted Trichocereus" Journal of Natural Products, 45:224-225