|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
Robo
R Series 66Y
Registered: 05/08/07
Posts: 14,861
|
|
I was just wondering. Cacti are beautiful indeed, I would never hurt an L. Williamsii just to "trip", even if it was home cultivated and not from the wild. Trichs are another story,though.
|
Dr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer


Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,545
Loc: Uk / Philippines
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Cactus ID please [Re: Robo]
#7608099 - 11/07/07 05:53 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
heheh dont get me wrong, i have no problem with people eating cacti, so long as they do so responsibly... for example: not harvesting from wild populations.
my hat goes off to anyone who grows their own cacti for consumption, im quite sure that they will never consume all they have and therefore they are contributing to the propagation and proliferation of species, despite munching plenty in the process
-------------------- View My Gallery
|
plainswalker
Plant Shepherd

Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 765
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Cactus ID please [Re: cpw1971]
#7608343 - 11/07/07 06:56 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
cpw1971 said: and thats why I was thinking cuzco's, because Cuzco's and KK242 are the same  maybe they should be CC242's??? lol
Cuzcoensis is basically a spiney scapegoat cactus. If someone eats a cactus and it's potent, they say "It must have been a Peruvian". If they eat one and it was weak or non-active, then they say it was a Cuzcoensis. I'm sure some of the weak/non-active were probably Cuzcoensis, but I strongly doubt all of them were. You can't really ID a cactus from it's potency, there are weak peyote out there, should we call them imposters because they didn't live up to our expectations?
KK242 is an identifier used by Karel Knize. He sells cacti and cacti seeds under that ID, but it isn't one phenotype under that ID like you'd think, there are several. To show my point, here is one KK242:

Here is another KK242:

A lot of people get jumpy and say KK242 and Cuzcoensis are synonymous. They are not, several different cacti go under 242, my second pic clearly not looking like a Cuzcoensis. People also call KK242 inactive but a study of the KK242 variety found the dried plant to contain .82 mescaline, although it doesn't mean all that much seeing how several plants are grouped under 242. It is not inconceivable though to think that the KK242 that tested .82 could possibly be the phenotype that is presently considered Cuzcoensis. Food for thought.
-------------------- tradelist
|
cpw1971
Mr

Registered: 10/07/06
Posts: 5,611
|
|
yeah the second pic looks like a long spined Pedro or something. first pic looks like a few of my cacti that I have that are clearly different than a Peruvian Torch. The new spines are yellow and as they get older they turn white. I have a Torch also and the spines turn dark brown. but being that the cacti in those pics are so different in age then I am not so sure once the first one gets huge it will look like the second??? or maybe the person that labeled them was eating too many
|
plainswalker
Plant Shepherd

Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 765
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Cactus ID please [Re: cpw1971]
#7608607 - 11/07/07 07:57 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
When the first one gets bigger it would most likely look very similar to this:

There are more phenotypes under 242 but I'm too lazy to trudge through the web to find them. You get the point though.
|
|