Cautus ID...

[Chiral]

The other day I came home with a few cactus that I bought off e-bay..its in another post here recently..anyways he has just sent me an e-mail saying that the light green one is a Cereus Peruvians...I've got a Cereus Peruvians in the yard and it doesn't look anything like this one..what do you guys reckon..I thought it was a Pach for sure... now I'm slightly confused..

So here is the pic again and I'll take some real close ups tomorrow when its light..

H.

[Bush Turkey]

The other day I came home with a few cactus that I bought off e-bay..its in another post here recently..anyways he has just sent me an e-mail saying that the light green one is a Cereus Peruvians...I've got a Cereus Peruvians in the yard and it doesn't look anything like this one..what do you guys reckon..I thought it was a Pach for sure... now I'm slightly confused..

So here is the pic again and I'll take some real close ups tomorrow when its light..

H.

it looks like my mates Trichocereus Peruvian short spine hybrid... but just guessing

[ballzac]

Looks 100% pach to me

[Garbage]

You can't be Cereus,and don't call me Shirley.

[Micromegas]

T. pachanoi, predominant cultivar. Needs repotting and some organic matter by the looks of it.

[Chiral]

Here's some more pics with the others in my small collection and a reference pic of a Cereus Peruvians behind the yellow flowering cactus.

Pictures a bit crappy ..taken free hand and was spitting rain so had to rush em a bit.

Note Mimosa Hostilis happy in the garden.

H.

[Micromegas]

Nice garden... tho that pedro is not going to transform into a cereus no matter how many photos you take

BTW, the other pedro you scored from the ebay deal is a pretty interesting looking chap, not the standard SP nor a scop IMO.

[Chiral]

Nice garden... tho that pedro is not going to transform into a cereus no matter how many photos you take ....heheheh agree..

Yeah I'm convinced its not a Cereus...just needed confirmation. Don't know why he e-mailed me and said it was..anyways it's been planted in the ground now so hopefully it will regain some of its colour and power on. The big one I scored is definitely a mutant..I have no idea what it is and from the sounds of others here too they don't either..it looks like a ScopXPach to me...but what the hell do I know I'm a still a nubile when it comes to critical Cactus ID...perhaps Mr S Smith is the only that definitely give the correct ID.

H.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Hunab Ku

[ballzac]

The big one I scored is definitely a mutant...it looks like a ScopXPach to me

Which one are you refferring to? I see a scop in the ground in the at the back and to the right, but both in the original post look like pach to me.

[Chiral]

HUH...the one to the back to the right is the one I scored from e-bay that was the one the debate about wether its a scop or pach...everyone here said it was pach 100%...I thought it was Scop...but even Teo said its Pach...?

the light green one is supposed to be Cereus Peruvians by the old owners accounts...fuckin totally confused cause it looks nothin like one...

H.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Hunab Ku

[ballzac]

I would call the tall one a scop, just because of its general form, particularly at the tip. Does it have spines? Nice totem pole btw.

[ballzac]

I just found the other thread you are referring to, and it does look like pachanoi in the close up shots. Strange how looks can be decieving in photographs. I woulod suspect that it has scop genetics in it due to its overall appearance.

[Chiral]

spines are tiny...just as a reference in picture no- 6 if you count from left to right...the cactus that has been cut and is right at the front of the pic lower left is definately a Scop.

the tall one I bought looks remarkably like it but its skin is not quite as rough.

H.

[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

[Evil Genius]

Candella, your a very nice guy and i´m sure that your totally honest about everything your telling! Just wanted to point this out!

When i see these pics, i´m more convinced than ever that the large two branched plant on the right is a Scop! I mean, cmon, thats big fuckin Tyrannosaurus Scop! We probably dont reach a consensus as we´re both very sure about our opinions! So lets screw it man! bye Eg

Edited December 23, 2008 by Evil Genius

[Micromegas]

I agree Candella your approach and posts have been great. But this scop/pach is a mystery for sure. It certainly doesn't appear to be the standard san pedro (aka predominant cultivar), which the other two you traded with hunab most certainly are. Therefore, it is hard to imagine they are from the same stock. I tend not to think it's a scop totally because it looks turgid and yet it is not as fat as scop would normally be. Yet it is too rounded with less spination that an average PC SP. It's an interesting and nice looking plant for sure.

[Candella]

We probably dont reach a consensus as we´re both very sure about our opinions!

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

[Chiral]

super macro shots tommorow ..

H.

[Evil Genius]

Hi Candella! I just used the description in Ritters KAKTEEN IN SÜDAMERIKA. It is in german and i would have to translate it,but this takes hours! Lets just wait for the areole Pics and then we know for sure without me having to type all that stuff! If i can help you out with an official Description of a Scop, i might be able to make a pic of a latin one and post it here!

The plant has features that fit for Scopulicola and for pachanoi! You are right that the spination on the pic you posted looks strange for a Scop! I´m interested in the closeup pic of that particular plant on the right! The shape of the Tips looks a lot like Scop! Also the distance between the areoles as well as the rounded areoles themselves! bye Eg

Edited December 23, 2008 by Evil Genius

[Evil Genius]

Ok, i´m really twisted! This Cactus is not easy! I just spoke to a very good friend and we both share the opinion that it looks like a Scop from afar! Close Ups look definately like a Pachanoi! Its not a typical Pachanoi nor is it an regular Scop! But he thinks that its probably a pachanoi though! And i totally trust him!

Its an interesting plant and a nice find, hunab! Please share some pics from time to time....I wanna see how the plant grows! bye Eg

Edited December 24, 2008 by Evil Genius

[Chiral]

Okay so here are the super macro shots of the areoles....so whats the concenus..."SCOPANOI"..!

H.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Hunab Ku

[Teotzlcoatl]

It's a "Non-predominant" pachanoi.

It Trichocereus pachanoi, but it's not the "P.C." pachanoi clone.

[paradox]

c'mon guys...are we seriously gonna keep having these pointless trich debates add infinitum? sure it can be interesting to a point but aren't people getting over debating the correct taxonomy of hybrid Trichocereus. what about the old debate of whether "PC pach" is even T. pachanoi? are we gonna go there too?

but (getting off my high horse now) for the record i reckon it definitely looks like a scop x pc hybrid

[Chiral]

LOL Paradox.... its fun to get everyone twisted up in knots about id...

H

[Micromegas]

Haha, I don't find these discussions (always) to be pointless, tho they can certainly head in that direction sometimes. I think the recent comparison of the PC clone with bridgessii is, however, quite interesting and does in fact help clarify what a 'true' pedro might actually be.

I agree with Teotz in this case, that this plant is a non-predominant pachanoi or as paradox says PC X scop. At this point we shall become twisted as there's no way to know for sure. If it was my plant i would call it san pedro

Maybe if it came from SAB there is a record somewhere of where it came from orginally.

It's a nice plant, very rounded in spination and at the apex, I like em like that. Lucky score hunab if I had known I might have placed a bid myself

[Candella]

Lets just wait for the areole Pics and then we know for sure without me having to type all that stuff!

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

Edited December 24, 2008 by Candella