mutant Posted December 11, 2008 I wonder what would be the main characteristics of these fatty trichs, as well as other similar trichs of the fatty 'family'... They grow more slowly than the fast growing trichs, I know that. They have more dense and long spination than pachanoi family. What else? I am supposedly growing both species, so it should be fun Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 ballzac Posted December 11, 2008 (edited) I would be interested in this too. In particular, the differences between species. I'm particularly curious about how to distinguish terscheckii from pasacana. Edited December 12, 2008 by ballzac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 t st tantra Posted December 12, 2008 which plants would belong to this group besides those 3 ? t s t . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 shruman Posted December 12, 2008 validus/valida & taquimbalensis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 bit Posted December 12, 2008 (edited) Thread needs photos... I'll grab one or two in a sec. Damn.. none found.. Will take some this weekend. Edited December 12, 2008 by bit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted December 12, 2008 How about Trichocereus pasacana? It's the real giant of the genus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 egad Posted January 2, 2009 I thought terschekii was the giant of the group, and pasacana grew smaller in height. I have a pasacana growing for a little over a year now, and it's very slow growing, thought the nursery i bought it from had some larger plants of it for sale in the past that were around 1 metre high, at its current rate of growth it's looking like it will take quite some time before it reaches such a height. Perhaps this slow rate of growth could account for lack of community knowledge of such plants. Perhaps some older cactus growers (those who've been at it for 30+ years) might have more to tell on the subject. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 PD. Posted January 2, 2009 T. validus The cutting i have seems to growing along nicely but really needs to go in the ground to get some good growth on it im sure. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Ace Posted January 2, 2009 T. validus looks very similar to T. peruvianus, although seemingly much greener and quite chunky with age. It's so similar I'd have probably labelled your cutting as a peru/cuzco Would love to see/hear about more of these lesser-known species (at least lesser-known in this community). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 PD. Posted January 2, 2009 Is much much larger Ace! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 ballzac Posted January 2, 2009 I think the perspective of that shot is deceptive, but going by the super pedro in the backround I realise that that validus is much bigger than a peruvianus. I too would have thought it was peruvianus from that shot, without giving it an extra look. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Chiral Posted January 2, 2009 T. Pasacana T. Tacaquirensis T. Terscheckii I'm learning all the time..love these threads. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Plantsoma Posted January 3, 2009 Trichocereus/Echinopsis werdermannianus Photos a bit old, this one was potted up and has grown triple this size in 9 months. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted November 2, 2010 Would love to see this thread alive a bit. wendermanianus KK1094 , from seed wendermanianus , also from seed, but has been grafted on pere in the past though 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Micromegas Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) Here are the "fat" varieties I've stumbled accross; all (except T.poco from SAB some years hence) have been the product of generous gardeners and are cuttings from fully mature specimens 20-30y.o. I feel very privileged to have these monsters in my garden; they are some of the hardiest plants I have found and actually fairly quick growing and with attitude. The possible pasacana is dehydrated and can get alot fatter. I.Ds are my own or in some cases the I.Ds of the grower from way back in the day. From left to right: Possible T. pasacana; however i have found a "real" pasacana elsewhere which is covered in white fluff so who knows... A protrate T. tersheckii... T. chiloensis (as labelled by owner)... T. poco... T. tersheckii... T. validus... unknown spiny beast... werdemanius (or is it werdermannius?)... unknown spiny beats again... werdemanius (dif)... werdermannius (dif again). Edited November 4, 2010 by Micromegas 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted November 4, 2010 Wow, thanks a lot man! Awesome plants. The last one looks unreal! one of the strain I got looks like the 4rth from the end, [top/side view, stone cycle] second from the end, a bit too. are these your own plants? :blink: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 bit Posted November 7, 2010 Last one in Micromegas' post is taquimbalensis. 6th is Cuzcoensis, 4th terscheckii... according to id's I've seen here in NZ anyway Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted November 13, 2010 6th cuzco you say ?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 bogfrog Posted November 23, 2010 wohoo awesome collection of pix very impressive unknown spikey as one with the little spiral snails on it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 bit Posted November 23, 2010 6th cuzco you say ?? Yep, if this one is then that one is too - that distinctive spination is a giveaway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted November 23, 2010 Sure I haven't settled to what a cuzco looks like, but it should get more interesting year by year, I got at least 3 strains of what people have descibed as cuzcoid... the spines just look so.... one directional and thinny for what I had in mind for cuzco. I wonder if Michael would agree with you... this photo of yours bit is a really nice looking cactus... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Micromegas Posted December 3, 2010 hey bit, number 6 is without a doubt the exact same plant as labelled t.validus in post number 8 of this thread, although it did not come from that plant. if that plant is a cuszcoensis i will gladly eat my hat. i did not think cuzcos would be placed in the "fat" group of trichs to begin with. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 bit Posted December 4, 2010 hey bit, number 6 is without a doubt the exact same plant as labelled t.validus in post number 8 of this thread, although it did not come from that plant. if that plant is a cuszcoensis i will gladly eat my hat. i did not think cuzcos would be placed in the "fat" group of trichs to begin with. I'm open to changing my ID - would you ID the picture I posted as Validus? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Micromegas Posted December 5, 2010 I'm open to changing my ID - would you ID the picture I posted as Validus? I personally wouldn't but i'm not an authority by any stretch of the imagination. That looks like a mature cutting from a mature plant but it appears only as fat as a pedro or peruvianus and that would preclude it from being a validus/tersheckii. I also was under the impression cuzcoensis' were quite spiny. On another note, is there any suggestion that t. validus is actually a plant that occurs somewhere in the wild? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 bit Posted December 5, 2010 Hrm, my picture is not the best, nor is plant totally healthy, being 2m tall in a 30cm pot. i am sure that it would look very similar to the one you posted in that environment. It is certainly of a similar girth. The thing which sets apart terscheckii and taquimbalensis are the ribbed and slightly curved spine ime. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 tripsis Posted December 5, 2010 On another note, is there any suggestion that t. validus is actually a plant that occurs somewhere in the wild? Sacred Succulents, on one of their recent expeditions, found a plant they tentatively identified as T. validus, or at least named it that with a question mark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
I wonder what would be the main characteristics of these fatty trichs, as well as other similar trichs of the fatty 'family'...
They grow more slowly than the fast growing trichs, I know that. They have more dense and long spination than pachanoi family. What else?
I am supposedly growing both species, so it should be fun
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites