|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
jivangilad
Stranger

Registered: 06/02/08
Posts: 714
Loc: Israel
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Trichocereus ID
#18875842 - 09/22/13 01:08 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Does it have any ID, or is it just a hybrid?
|
modern.shaman
San Mescalito




Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 3,224
Loc: Zone 13
|
|
Trichocereus cuzcoensis... maybe peruvianus
Edited by modern.shaman (09/22/13 01:14 PM)
|
Tangich


Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 8,723
|
|
Agreed, beautiful cuzco specimen.
|
jivangilad
Stranger

Registered: 06/02/08
Posts: 714
Loc: Israel
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: Trichocereus ID [Re: Tangich]
#18876296 - 09/22/13 02:56 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I wonder if it is active, since I see different opinions about cuzcoensis on the web. Some say it is inactive, and others that is is like Peyote.
|
intelligentlife
Noaidi



Registered: 10/18/10
Posts: 2,627
Loc: EU
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
|
I would keep that cactus as "peruvian torch"
Peruvian Torch have usually appearance like this so cannot say further.. Nice cactus!
|
nicechrisman
Interdimensional space wizard



Registered: 11/07/03
Posts: 33,241
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
I've come to the conclusion that it's nearly impossible to positively distinguish between peruvianus, cuzcoensis, and macrogonus. Especially in a picture like this. Looks like one of those though.
-------------------- "Cosmic Love is absolutelely ruthless and highly indifferent: it teaches its lessons whether you like/dislike them or not." John C. Lily
|
intelligentlife
Noaidi



Registered: 10/18/10
Posts: 2,627
Loc: EU
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
|
One possible ID can be some hybrid between bridgesii and peruvian torch..
But as far as ornamental nurseries sell peruvian torches, they looks like this.
Possible t. macrogonus cannot be ruled out.. Never seen "real" macrogonus and it's similar to peruvian torch..
In my mind peruvian torch is a "nickname" for cactus identical to picture or trichocereus with huge central spines and randomly amount of radial spines.
|
karode13
Tāne Mahuta




Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,290
Loc: LV-426
|
|
Quote:
modern.shaman said: Trichocereus cuzcoensis
Quote:
Tangich said: Agreed, beautiful cuzco specimen.
Totally agree.
Looks like it's from notoriously variable kk242 seed stock.
Quote:
nicechrisman said: I've come to the conclusion that it's nearly impossible to positively distinguish between peruvianus, cuzcoensis, and macrogonus.
It's really not that hard once you know their distinguishing features. Some forms are very easy to identify while others can only be guessed or lumped into various genus. The one in the OP is in the cuzcoensis group based on oversall appearance, rib morphology, spination: See the Yellow, honey coloured central spine, swollen at the base, that soon loses colour turning White? That's a good indication of cuzcoensis.
|
nicechrisman
Interdimensional space wizard



Registered: 11/07/03
Posts: 33,241
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
Re: Trichocereus ID [Re: karode13]
#18881700 - 09/23/13 06:33 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It seems to me that many different experts have their own criteria for classification of these species, and most of them are not the same.
-------------------- "Cosmic Love is absolutelely ruthless and highly indifferent: it teaches its lessons whether you like/dislike them or not." John C. Lily
|
karode13
Tāne Mahuta




Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,290
Loc: LV-426
|
|
I would read only Keeper Trout and M.S Smith's work on the Genus. They're regarded as people who know their shit and they're approach to identification is fairly basic to understand, for the more common species of Trichocereus that is. I spent a couple of hours talking personally with KT in 2011 and also attended his lectures. He's a humble person who is making sense out of the confusion and dispelling myths along the way. Read his books from cover to cover and you'll see. Don't read too seriously, if at all, into facebook postings, most are laughable at best.
|
intelligentlife
Noaidi



Registered: 10/18/10
Posts: 2,627
Loc: EU
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: Trichocereus ID [Re: karode13]
#18882785 - 09/23/13 10:38 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
karode13 said:
Quote:
modern.shaman said: Trichocereus cuzcoensis
Quote:
Tangich said: Agreed, beautiful cuzco specimen.
Totally agree.
Looks like it's from notoriously variable kk242 seed stock.
I have understand that K242 cactus is a first identified peruvian torch cactus found from cuzco, peru. Or is that cactus today named as t. cuzcoensis instead?
|
karode13
Tāne Mahuta




Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,290
Loc: LV-426
|
|
kk242 is a location number assigned to seeds collected by a well known seed collector/seller from various Trichocereus around Matucana, Peru and not cuzco(cusco). The resulting plants grown from these seeds have produced plants like the one in the original post, which is strange as they're not native to that area, as well as peruvianoids and also a few bridgesii. There's speculation that this seed was mislabeled or mixed up.
You are right about T. peruvianus being first identified in Matucana. It was discovered by Dr. and Mrs Rose near Matucana, Peru at 2100 metres altitude on July 9, 1914. KK242 was applied to seed collected many decades later by Karel Knize.
kk242 seed is a clusterfuck/gamble and shouldn't really be used as a name unless trying to explain how your "kk242 peruvianus seed" turned out to be a bridgesii four years after sowing. We would then understand why you didn't get what you thought you bought. Why? Because the kk242 seed is notoriously unreliable.
T.peruvianus is still a valid name and is different from T.cuzcoensis. (well not really valid since the Trichocereus/Echinopsis merge, but you know what I mean.)
There's a lot of info on various boards about this seed. A quick search should bring up all you should want to know.
|
intelligentlife
Noaidi



Registered: 10/18/10
Posts: 2,627
Loc: EU
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: Trichocereus ID [Re: karode13]
#18883242 - 09/24/13 01:08 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I understand what you mean, problem is the information mixed up as well as seeds and possible identification.
Usually when looking nurseries selling trichocereus plants, there are no difference with cuzcoensis and peruvianus, they are considered as same plants cause they look same.
One nursery I know, sell seed grown hybrids but very stable hybrids, peruvian torches are just hybrids named to peruvian torch. San pedro plants are hybrids named as san pedro. Only difference makes trichocereus bridgesii plants, they are really seen they are hybrids, some of them are slim, some of them are fat, some have short spines and some have very long spines and so on.
My point is actually not to argue what the plant in the thread really is.. It could be regular t. cuzcoensis.
However, I just wanted to get point out there that the information between these "KK-xxx" plants are very hard to know for sure what they are.
Similar plants I have seen said to be peruvian torch, also as cuzcoensis..
Best way still to ID the plants is to know seed source, also seed producer should know what they are and what is mother and father plant... Getting similar plants from seeds requires still first of all inbreed within same fruit seeds.
As a name of "peruvian torch" I don't think it's a species name, it's a brand name for spiny trichocereus plants no matter what they are, just matter are there lots of spines... In case of I speak about decoration plant nurseries who sell these plants.. "peruvian torch" doesn't mean they are t. peruvianus.. It mean they are spiny trichos but not similar to t. bridgesii nor t. pachanoi.
About few internet sites. T. pachanoi are considered to be t. peruvianus.. It said to be vary from spineless to very spiny cactus, some cactus information sites doesn't even separate t. peruvianus and t. pachanoi from eachother.. Also t. cuzcoensis are simply t. pachanoi but with different spinal formation.
I don't know can I say what site I am talking about but it only recognize t. pachanoi as very variable species from spineless to very spiny also it makes difference with t. bridgesii to t. pachanoi and some other very different trichos but all other macrogonus, peruvianus, glaucus etc are identified as different pachanoi variant origianl from south america mountains of andes.
Does this popular site are right or wrong, I don't know but t. pachanoi are identified as every tricho and most variable trichocereus species known to exists.. As what I have understand it that they consider every trichocereus as t. pachanoi but t. bridgesii are considered as different species. And what comes to ornamental cactus growers, they doesn't acually separate these species so much and san pedro is just san pedro spineless or very spiny. Like this in the picture, if it's not t. bridgesii, it's pachanoi.. According the famous cactus information site around there.
Therefor I have think should we talk these species as t. pachanoi v. peruvianus/cuzcoensis/macrogonus etc or not? ..this is just a question cause few ornamental internet site doesn't make difference between these species and consider them all as t. pachanoi and says pachanoi is most variable species trichocereus have.
Edited by intelligentlife (09/24/13 01:10 AM)
|
jivangilad
Stranger

Registered: 06/02/08
Posts: 714
Loc: Israel
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
|
So for curiosity I took 15 cm, and made juice in freeze thaw blend method. I was surprised the juice was not nasty at all. Really no problem with the taste. I smoked a little canabis too. Since I am not used to canabis, I was not sure if the mild feeling was from canabis or cacti. If any effect very mild. In even a weak San pedro I would have felt it strongly. So I assume it is very weak if active at all.
|
|