Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Malo

Trichocereus Glaucous?

Question

14 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Welcome Malo,

I'd have labelled yours T. peruvianus. I think MSSmith recently uploaded pics of T. glauca (synonymous with T. glaucous?) at the Nook which looked much more like T. knuthianus or T. chilensis than your plant. Quite a nice look about yours IMO :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks Ace,

That plant isn't mine, but I do have a smaller one. I was thinking it was more aligned with macrogonus due to the LARGE and fuzzy aereoles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'd go with macrogonus on the pictured plant,but thats just an educated opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yeah I have a plant just like this which I have been calling macrogonus. Nice variety it is too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Oh man,I just received a cut of this plant today,it is damn fat! A very lovely plant,not sure about it being macrogonus now that I physically see it.However I'd say too many radials for a peruvianus,though all of this species determination through morphology is just speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Mind if ask where you sourced your cutting Spun? I emailed the guy who posted those pics and am waiting for a reply. I think his plant traces back to Bob Ressler. It is a very distinct plant compared to other macs. The tips of all the spines are tinged brown and yeah it is very fat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Sorry for a lazy question (I know it has probably been asked/answered previously), but could someone please advise what the main macroscopic (visual) differences between T. peruvianus and T. macrogonus are? AFAIK, the easiest way to distinguish them are the spine colour (peruvianus tends to have yellow/brown spines, macrogonus has yellow/grey spines?) and how glaucous the epidermis is (peruvianus has bright blue colouring, macro is mostly green?). I'm still quite new to peruvianus/macrogonus (only have a couple peruvianus cuttings recently aquired) so would be interested to hear current opinions in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Personally ,I base my assumptions on familiarity and intuition,nothing concrete.Without flowering plants it's really hard to nail anything down,even with flowers there would still be contention among some.Guesses are better than just throwing your hands up in disgust though :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I was always under the impression that Trichocereus glaucus had noticebly black new spines? This would be an excellent identification point IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That's just a T. peruvianus in my opinion. if you want to recognize the name T. macrogonus without explaination of where if actually differs from T. peruvianus then you can call it that if you want.

Here's T. glaucus from Sacred Succulents. It generally fits the descriptions, but be aware that my plant does not grow idenitically to how it would in southern Peru.

~Michael~

post-19-1222468865_thumb.jpg

post-19-1222468876_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Looks like it has red new spines. My mistake. Has those those distinct black spines too, that must have been what I was thinking of.

Cheers Michael.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That's some very nice landscaping Michael. Your T. glaucous looks the same as mine as it should since it is also from SS.

As for the peruvianus in question, I am curious if it is from Rimac Valley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I feel obligated to join in on this discussion since the specimen in question belongs to me. I agree with all here that we are not looking at a glaucus but some type of macrogonoid or peruvianoid. On the flickr site the desc. of the pic says that it was labeled glaucus but looks more like a macrogonoid in appearance. I lean more toward a Mac because of the large brown and grey fuzzy areoles, more radials than my peruvians, one central spine, and the ribs are much more shallow. This plant is very distinct from all the other peruvians that the grower offered. There are a few problems to say the least in the proper ID of these Trichs (as seen in the How to Recognize a Mac post); too many mislabeled plants (like this one) and the influence of environment. This was purchased at a cactus nursery a few miles from Ressler's house when he lived in California. The nursery received plants from Ressler before he moved (Ressler purchased some there), but I cannot confirm that this is one of them (just theory) It is a very BLUE form of Trichocereus and one of my favorites. I agree with Mr. Smith that it could be labeled a peruvianoid just as easy as a Macrogonoid. If this plant was grown in more of a true to species environment, it may look very different (soil, light, water) Its tough to pinpoint a name on a plant that can look vastly different depending on location. I agree with Malo that it looks very close to that pic from Ressler. Certainly there is an above average chance that Ressler may have given the plant or bought a clone of the plant from the nursery in question. I spoke with the owner and he cannot say with certainty what came from Ressler, but he has some outstanding specimens. One of the purposes of the flickr site was to get comments on the ID's listed. I posted the ID's that were given at time of purchase, some fit OK and others not so! I look forward to the replies in this post and feel free to ask away!

t_tr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×