Candella

I already know it's not a scop. Have you read anything I've written? In any event, I'm glad to see that someone whose opinion you trust was able to change your mind Glad that's all as cleared up as it's going to get. My best recollection is that these were bought from either Gamao's Garden or SAB in about 2003 (maybe 2004), and they were definitely sold to me as t. pachanoi. If SAB or whoever run's Gamao's Garden can add something based on that information, then great. However, I repeat that I'm 99% sure all the plants Hunab got from me are cuttings from the same stock. Merry Christmas all - enjoy the pagan festivities. cheers Candella

Heh heh, my turn to say "you've got me wrong". In the nicest possible way, if we aren't reaching a consensus, it's because you aren't participating in any form of dialogue. Doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, but some actual information would hugely help your cause! As I've said, I know very little about cactus identification and I've tried to be clear about the assumptions I've made. I'm not trying to prove anything - I'm genuinely trying to learn what it is that makes you (and others) see scop-like features in one or more of the plants pictured. In essence, the plant you've identified repeatedly as a "scop" (and never a scop hybrid, incidentally) has a number of features that pure scops apparently don't have. That conclusion is based on a ton of information, all of which I set out in the other thread. Yet even now you haven't given a single piece of actual information beyond effectively saying "trust me". Micromegas, I can't really add much more. I absolutely see the difference you're talking about, but I'm 99% sure all of the other plants Hunab received were the offcuts and pups from one or more of the eBayed plants, which I didn't have time to re-pot and treat properly. Did you look at the other plants in the eBay auctions around the same time (items 220331084877 and 220331084949)? They were all treated the same as the one we're talking about and arguably have more in common with that than with the freebies I gave Hunab. For example, here's a cropped, higher resolution version of the tip of one of the auctioned plants BEFORE the recent growth and time spent in the shade since last March: Speculative question: is it conceivable that environmental factors could have this much of an impact? My favoured plants (the three that were auctioned) were treated very, very differently to the freebies - lots of dynamic lifter, fish and seaweed emulsion, lime, scoria in the soil when potted, and ample watering during summer. Probably a bit too much of everything over the years, to be honest :-) Could that account for the "pumped up" look? I wonder whether Hunab can get some macro pictures of the areoles? Might advance the investigation somewhat... cheers Candella

Tell the old owner he's a bastard and liar. Actually, since that's me, don't. Allow me to explain. Before I went overseas earlier this year, I sold and gave away quite a few cacti. A couple of them were cereus peruvianus. The cereus were the first large columnar cacti I owned. I'd had a general interest in succulents for a few years, but other than a couple of small cacti I'd bought, and a couple of large golden barrels that a friend gave me, I'd never owned any "serious" cacti. When I started getting a bit more interested in entheogenic cacti (purely from a sociological perspective), I went for a visit out to Arizona Cactus nursery in Box Hill in western Sydney. I'd bought various bits and pieces there in the past but hadn't been for years. Imagine my surprise to find it completely shut down. The land it was on was about to be bulldozed for a housing development. The house adjacent the nursery was fenced in, and had quite a large number of huge cacti that I couldn't identify then - and probably couldn't identify now. There may even have been some scops I assume the owner of the nursery had lived there. I'm hope someone got cuttings before they were nuked. Although the house was completely fenced in, there were some large plants on the roadside. Without knowing enough to do any identification, I grabbed a couple of cuttings and took them home with me to pot up. It turns out these were cereus peruvianus - and I thought that one of these was still at my mate's house. When I briefly glanced at the pictures Hunab took, I thought that the lighter coloured one was a separate plant from the the darker column in front of it. I therefore initially assumed this was one of the cereus peruvianus plants. However, when I looked at the pictures again more closely yesterday, I noticed that the light columns were actually from the same plant as the one in front of them. This plant is therefore a neglected pup from one of the eBayed pachs, and those identifying it as a pach are correct. I said the following in the other thread, not realising this thread was going, and having forgotten that I'd told Hunab it was a cereus based on my earlier cursory glance: "One final comment - I'm pretty sure ALL of these plants have origins in the same batch of identical cuttings, either as direct planting or from pups from those plantings. The ones that were auctioned were treated very well - lots of water, lime, seaweed extract, dynamic lifter, terracotta pots, love, etc. The freebies were neglected to some extent due to time and space. Amazing what a difference environment makes, eh?" In any event, to the best of my recollection, all the plants Hunab got from me are from the same genetic stock. I don't believe I've ever bought any trichocereus (or trich-like plants) other than in one transaction in about 2003, and to my uneducated eye, those cuttings were all identical in appearance. So if the big one is a hybrid, it's likely they all are! Sorry for the confusion. cheers Candella

Thanks Evil, that's all I needed. Looks like your grandmother gets to stay mobile! One final comment - I'm pretty sure ALL of these plants have origins in the same batch of identical cuttings, either as direct planting or from pups from those plantings. The ones that were auctioned were treated very well - lots of water, lime, seaweed extract, dynamic lifter, terracotta pots, love, etc. The freebies were neglected to some extent due to time and space. Amazing what a difference environment makes, eh? cheers Candella

"Oh you got me wrong! there wont be another reply!" Nope, I didn't get you wrong. You originally said you didn't have time to reply because you were heading off to work and would reply later, hence my response. However, it appears you had a change of heart and edited your original reply between me hitting "reply" to your original post and actually submitting my response some time afterwards. That's fine, I can see why you'd be reticent As for the rest: perhaps surprisingly, all three auctioned plants were grown from identical cuttings bought at the same time from the same vendor, and were indistinguishable from each other when originally potted up. They were sold as pachs and I've never had any reason to believe they were anything else. As I said before, I'm no expert, and all I'd concluded from looking into it the other day is that they aren't pure scops What might be causing confusion with the new pictures is that I've learned all the plants were left in the shade by my mate over winter and into the new growing season (he's been looking after them since I went to the UK in February). I knew that they'd put on some new growth, but I didn't know there was so much of it, or that it was so dark and etiolated. Hunab, since the other two went so cheaply compared to yours, I thought I'd throw in all the other plants as a freebie. I hope all the extras go some way to making up for the plants not looking quite like the pictures on eBay. Even though I knew they'd starting growing again (and said so in the auction notes), I didn't know they were quite so different to what was pictured. Anyway, thanks for all the comments. cheers Candella

Cool, I'm very interested in your reply. Enjoy work cheers Candella

Sorry, that was meant to be a joke to lighten up my dull serious posts on this thread. The winkey was meant to make that clear but I suppose you could read it as sinister too. Trust me when I say that I had better things to do with two hours today than research and write out the above if it was rubbish. I really just want to know why every single piece of information I have available to me suggests they aren't scops but someone who seems to know what they are talking about is insisting categorically that they are! cheers Candella

Actually, all that stuff I wrote is rubbish. They're scops, but I mucked about with the pics in photoshop to make them look like pachs so I could sell them at a higher price on eBay. I knew someone would swallow it Anyway, when you've got them in your possession, maybe you can take some better pics and post them on this thread? Might answer the question one way or the other for sure. cheers Candella

I'm not an expert, but bear with me for a bit here. Evil, you initially told me categorically that "These are scops!" I pointed out (amongst other things) that scops aren't generally glaucous and you posted a picture of a glaucous plant that is by your own admission at best a hybrid of uncertain providence. How is a hybrid's glaucousness relevant to whether mine are scops (you never mentioned the possibility of mine being hybrids)? And then you even more emphatically insisted "These are definately Scops! Trust me! Its probably the "Friedrich Ritter Scop". No disrespect intended, but why should I trust you when you can't tell me a single feature that mine have that make them definitely scops? In any event, I spent a bit of time today doing some research, and the following is what I found: First, it appears that glaucousness is even more definitely not a feature of pure scops than I'd thought - from Trout's Notes http://www.troutsnotes.com/sc/Trichocereus...ter_webpage.htm "Not glaucous; surface is rougher than T. pachanoi overall (except at growing tip) RB." "NMCR material grown from FR991 seeds showed glaucous patterns only at transition between recent and older growth. (TROUT)" (Interestingly, FR991 is precisely what you told me you thought that my plants were, yet Trout says that plants grown from FR991 seeds "show glaucous patterns only at transitions between recent and older growth". I remind you that the entire surface of all my plants are VERY glaucous. And before you mention they were grown from seed and may therefore look different, I also mention that according to more than one discussion I found, scops grown from seed appear truer to (scop) type than just about any other trich. Also on this point, Michael Smith has an FR991 that looks nothing at all like my plants - unfortunately I can't find the link again.) Final comment on glaucous skin: "The other remarkable thing about scop is that it behaves in a bizzare fashion when it comes to the skin. It gets the black rot like a bridgesii, is rough to the touch like no other, is pale green in full sun/ dark green in shade, and it is NEVER glaucous." (from one of the threads below) Also from Trout's Notes: "The ribs are... broadly rounded and blunt" - mine aren't at all rounded - they verge on concave, if anything. "almost without indentations" - look at the edge of the silhouettes of mine; they have indentations! "While scopulicola lacks indentations or grooves above the areoles (causing the edges to have a smoother profile than T. pachanoi), it can develop sloping depressions under the areoles with age" - mine is the opposite of this, if anything; the indentations are above the aerole and there is swelling below. The vertical edge of the rib clearly undulates along its length, which is not at all typical of scops. "The grooves between the ribs are straight & even (RITTER), deep (HEWITT) & more indented than T. pachanoi (RB)" - if anything, the grooves on mine are less deep than an average pach (note: they were very well hydrated when the photos were taken). The plant you posted a picture of does have the sunken/downward facing aeroles I mentioned and a bulge in the tissue above the aerole. In contrast, look at the silhouette of the aeroles of my plants in the photos - they very clearly have an upward tilt and a slight bulge in the tissue below each aerole. That is not a feature of scops. More info: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...showtopic=15806 In particular, refer to the "jelly bean" comments further down the thread. I don't have pictures, but my plants definitely have the "jelly bean" look at every apical meristem. It is suggested in this thread that whilst this doesn't prove it's a pach, jelly bean type growth proves it's not a scop. Not definitive, but interesting. Also, looking at the pictures of the texture of pachs and scops in that same thread, from memory (I'm not in the same country as the plants) mine are not at all rough like the scop skin shown. Another comment in that thread: "Scops seem to among the most consistent of the trichs in appearance" - and yet mine don't seem to have ANY of the "usual" characteristics of scops! I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but to my mind, all you've provided so far is the repeated unsupported insistence that my plants are "definitely scops", along with some justification as to why the absence of virtually all common scop characteristics doesn't prove they aren't! I am genuinely interested in what features you see that led you to such a strong conclusion - and what it evidence it would take to satisfy you otherwise. By the way, I found a picture of the FR991 scop you mentioned here: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...mp;#entry172194 The FR991 (that identification was yours, by the way) in that thread has exactly the type of small, recessed aeroles you would expect from a archetypal mature scop - which mine don't have at all. You'll need to trust me when I say that my plants look nothing like those in real life. So either FR991 varies a lot in look (unlikely) or one of your diagnoses of FR991 is wrong. Incidentally, I may as well fess up and admit that although a friend is selling these while I'm overseas, they're actually mine. I'm not sure why I was being so paranoid as to originally suggest otherwise - habit, I guess. Anyway, one of these sold yesterday at the buy it now price of $60. The other two represent over 1.6m (per pot) of organically grown, SAB-sourced pachanoi (or scop, depending who you talk to ;) and are presently selling at the bargain price of $10.50 each. cheers Candella

Thanks guys. So what do you think - are they scops or pachs? cheers Candella

Quote from my mate: "Interesting, thanks for the comment. I don't know whether there's something about the photos that make them look scop-ish but I'm very curious about what features have made you conclude this. My thoughts: 1. According to Michael Smith on this thread http://tinyurl.com/46bzf9, scops are generally not glaucous. Mine are very glaucous (which isn't so clear from the photos, but very apparent in real life). 2. The aeroles on pachs tend to be directed upwards. Scops, I think, are level or point downwards, are usually sunken and have very small - if any - spines. Check the scop photo here to see what I mean: http://www.basementshaman.com/trsc.html The areoles are pointing down and are spineless. The ones on mine clearly point up, aren't at all sunken and have definite (small) spines (not that this is necessarily a guarantee, I know). 3. Pachs often have horizontal grooves above the areoles, as do mine. I don't believe scops have these. 4. Trout says scops are dark green. These aren't dark green. 5. Scops are said to grow at perhaps half the speed of pachs. Look at the growth marks - these have grown from dehydrated unrooted 20cm cuttings an inch across to total over 1.5-1.7 metres of cactus each in only four growing seasons, in those small pots. Do scops grow that fast (genuine question)? Maybe they're scops - I'm certainly no expert - but I'd be interested to know what it is about them that led you to conclude that's what they are. Incidentally, I bought them as "pachanoi cuttings" from a Shaman Australis vendor a few years back. Are any vendors known to have mis-sold scops as pachs?" Any thoughts? thanks Candela

A friend of mine is selling three pachs on eBay. Item numbers are: 220331084813 220331084877 220331084949 Each has two columns of about 70 and 90 cm. Low starting price (he would argue!) of $10 for each of them. If you don't have any ebay account (and don't want one) but still want to participate, pm me and I'll see what we can organise. If you win, it's really important that they get taken by the middle of next week, as the people that live in the house where they are at the moment are moving just after Christmas. cheers! Candella

Full disclosure - these are being sold by a close friend of mine! The bridgesii has a 1.5m main column and four huge pups (largest one 55cm): Item: 220238635700 If the bridgesii is won by a shaman-australis member, he'll throw in some unrooted pach pups. The three pachs are all main stem plus a very tall pup - typically 70-90cm each stem: Items: 220238370099 220238370070 220238370085 Thanks for looking. Torsten, please feel free to remove this post if promotion of friend's ebay listings like this is not acceptable. cheers Candella