Teotzlcoatl Posted July 18, 2008 (edited) High in the mist covered mountains of the Andes... ....there, grows the mythical blue cactus. I believe Trichocereus "True Blue" peruvianus is a remanant of the ancient Trichocereus peruvianus sub-species, which diverged from T. pachanoi and T. bridgesii but was soon quickly reintroduced into the gene pool by human interfence. There are so many T.pachanoi/peruvianus and T.bridgesii/peruvianus hybrids out there it makes it really hard to find "true" genetically pure plants, maybe impossible, but I think I can come close. Perhaps by hybridizing a number of "True Blue" peruvianus I can get something that matches the morphilogical appearance of this mysthical cactus. A friend's questions about "True Blue" peruvianus- I asked him (a "true" peruvianus grower) if any of his plants in his patch had any fruit. NONE. All those are clones. I am wondering.. How common is your strain? Is the peruvianus in MS Smith's essay the same plant(Without glaucus, nothing in his garden seems to blue that much)?If this clone is that special and rare than maybe we could try swopping a cuttings some time. To try and have seed parents. They look so simmilar I would like to try. But obviousely my experience with pedro's aren't that good so I might have it all wrong and might be making a big deal out of nothing. If this clone is that special and rare than maybe we could try swopping a cuttings some time. To try and have seed parents. They look so simmilar I would like to try. Here is a picture of a cactus that I believe represent a Trichocereus \"True Blue\" peruvianus- ~Teotzlcoatl~ P.S.- Do ANYBODY know where this myth came from??? The myth that there is a Trichocereus cactus that is "Blue with long blood red spines??? If anybody can find a source of this myth please send me a link or just post a quote. P.P.S.- Post pics of your "True Blue" peruvianus!!! P.P.P.S.- More to come, I'm just busy, Some of my pics and what not... Edited September 6, 2012 by Evil Genius Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spunwhirllin Posted July 18, 2008 It seems you said it a few times yourself,myth? There are countless variables that influence the morphology of the Trichs,find a blue one and declare it the mythical blue peruvianus.That's about as close as you'll get. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted July 18, 2008 (edited) It seems you said it a few times yourself,myth? Ya but do you know where it came from? The only refecnce you can probably find now is me saying it over and over again, lol. I just have no idea where I orignally heard it... I think it has to has a tendcy toward bluing, to be a "Blue" peruvianus, not just bluing in 1/10 enviroments or something like that... I know morphology is variable from enviroment to enviroment. ~Teotzlcoatl~ P.S.- Please, Please, PLEASE no smart ass comments of silly pointless arguments in this thread. I'm very serious about this and the thread was actually made for another member here, not me, so please guys lets keep this one clean, ok? Edited September 6, 2012 by Evil Genius Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
George Posted July 19, 2008 (edited) Peruvianus is not a myth. We are talking about a identifier name here given to something out there collected from the wild. The Indians use their own names I think that might not have been related to a specific something accept maybe a rather large and fat trich growing in those areas that are suitable(Suitabillity). This is not facts but to me common logic. What I have realized with all this rigmarole and everyone just "Saying it like it is" instead of fixing the mess or giving concrete outlines on "what we should do".. or not being able to give us "how to tell's" that are global standards instead of personal projections,.. Is.. that the only thing we have to satisfy the cactus home collector is, the specimen collectors names, documents, areas and times and having a clone of those specific specimens. That is if you are a whore for that type of stuff. The descriptions in the books vary and they mean crap because of the one undermining the next and different specimens has been labeled the same or the same looking ones differantly throughout the taxonomy era's. The cactus collectors having labeled their specimens, well, we live with their errors or correctness. They weren't constant but so weren't the cactus when it needed to be. What they were though were "entitled" so their mistakes lasts. But what they didn't expect was that their names and data became more of a label than the actual latin name. I like the specific specimen idea, and not the working from descriptions idea. That is data we can work from and trace back to something even if you create hybrid's. Peruvianus X patch, Hell, What does that mean? Give me a picture of both parents and then I'd know what I'm ordering. The real pictures and not one standard pic grabbed off google somewhere. Ok... Enough of that steam. Here is a friend of mines stash, he sent me some small pups(Thanx Lenard!!) When I saw these pics the first time, I saw the museum doc. Regardless of what they might be, The brittain and Rose water paining also made sense. It even fits Brittain and rose's description of "Spines brown form the start" . So you could call this one a Brittain and Rose whore. Edited July 19, 2008 by George Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted July 19, 2008 Dude holy shit! (Pic #2) Those are nice Trichocereus peruvianus, I would consider them to be "True Blue". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garbage Posted July 19, 2008 I had written a long rambling post but became tired of my own musings. Intermediate forms is something to watch out for,it may be fine for academics but of little use to the discerning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bit Posted July 19, 2008 This is the blue-est peru I have, with orangy-red spines: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted July 20, 2008 (edited) I had written a long rambling post but became tired of my own musings.Intermediate forms is something to watch out for,it may be fine for academics but of little use to the discerning. What do you mean? Can you give me a link? Bit thats a very nice cactus, but it's def. pachanoid. The second one is peruvianoid tho... Very nice cacti... Edited July 20, 2008 by Teotz' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
George Posted July 20, 2008 I like the second columnar one from the front. It means business. The one in front is also quite photo-geneic. I had written a long rambling post but became tired of my own musings.Intermediate forms is something to watch out for,it may be fine for academics but of little use to the discerning. If you can write in a style that's riveting and entertaining or possible new iteresting stuff you might pull it off. I try but you could just skip over that crap. I do it all the time with other posts and so do those. There has been posts, however written in a style that made me read every last letter. I admire that. Obviousely not me yet. Heh.. If my English teacher told me that Thesaurus determines how many folk digs you,... I would have paid more attention. But I know, where you put "pauses".............. Are Really important. O and my special skill(Not), where to get off or where to end sentances. Maybe I should rewrite that James Joice book Ulysses a couple of times to get it right, aparently that will fix it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garbage Posted July 20, 2008 Check the musings of Marlon here. http://www.bcss.org.uk/forum/read.php?1,100602,page=2 Trichocereus may well be sexually compatible with echinopsis but if the progeny could sustain themselves in the wild you would see many more Trichocereus with coloured flowers in the wild. He also has a thread of his explorations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garbage Posted July 20, 2008 It's a nice blue but it has no stylized eagles on cactus,the v notch and areoles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted July 20, 2008 no stylized eagles what? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garbage Posted July 20, 2008 (edited) The eagle on the cactus eating the snake is still used in Mexico as a national emblem. Lots of travelling of people,produce,culture and customs in the pre-columbian America's. They even had mummies. It took me 15 years of casually examining the plants once every week or so to discern the flying condor shape,the Inca had several thousand years. All day and everyday. Edited July 20, 2008 by Garbage Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garbage Posted July 20, 2008 The Condor http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...-condor-c03.jpg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garbage Posted July 20, 2008 I also wonder if sky burial was a feature of Machu Pichu for the adults. Gotta get rid off the dead someplace. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garbage Posted July 20, 2008 How else you gonna fly with the ancestors? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted July 20, 2008 I think you lost me... Can you please explain? ...unless your just messin' around? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bit Posted July 21, 2008 It's a nice blue but it has no stylized eagles on cactus,the v notch and areoles. Oh, it definitely has them, it's just with it having been greenhouse grown they're not as apparent as a plant with weathering ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
George Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) LOL!! A condor flying carrying a woolly mammoth fur shield with massive tusks sticking out of it. Edited July 22, 2008 by George Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) Sorry for the confusion. Edited July 26, 2008 by Teotz' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t st tantra Posted July 22, 2008 thanx 4 the condor...thats cool.....once u get it ,its got u! t s t . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted July 22, 2008 Well it seems like y'all are just messin' with me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garbage Posted July 23, 2008 It's a theory,whether it was or is a common knowledge is a mystery to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garbage Posted July 24, 2008 (edited) Condor and at 1.30,cactus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-KWAXWy-yc Not very blue sadly. See the sun? Edited July 24, 2008 by Garbage Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
