Jump to content
The Corroboree
prier

roseii = peruvianus

Recommended Posts

Trichocereus peruvianus Br. et R. = Cereus roseii Werd. peru.

plant 2 to 4 m. high. much branched, with stems 6 to 10 cm. thick, erect or prostrate, bluish green passing to green or dull greyish green, with 6 to 8 ribs, and brownish areoles about 2 1/2 cm apart. Spines about 10, brownish up to 4cm long. flowers 22 to 25 cm. long white, sweet scented. The name Roseii was given by Werdermann to distinguish it from cereus (piptanthocereus) peruvianus. Very similar to T. macragonus, but usually more slender and often prostrate.

from J.Borg Cacti Third edition 1959

But actually it's called

Echinopsis peruviana (B+R) FrdH+Rowl 1974

from the new cactus lexicon 2006

There's no point arguing over old names.

Edited by prier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a good name to identofy a certain strain of peruvianus IMO.

Anything that is unique is worth naming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good info prier thanks :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two clones of the early peruvianus, I guess you could call them Echinopsis peruviana ROSEII1 and ROSEII2, or something similar. That isn't an accepted name, but it does help with communication.

I just find it funny people comparing what they call Trichocereus roseii and Trichocereus peruvianus, if you've read any of the Trichocereus descriptions, you'll realised how variable they all are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Trichocereus roseii is just a certain clone of Trichocereus peruvianus, it would be better called Trichocereus peruvianus var. roseii!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted the same thing here - Trichocereus "rosei", where the name came from.

I havent really seen anyone "comparing" the two plants at all considering they are one in the same, as for arguing about it i havent really seen any of that going on either. I thought most ppl were aware of the fact it was a name given to peruvi by werdermann to try limit confusion with dirty ol cereus p. Like sharxx mentioned it is a good way of keeping track of a certain clone just like other clones such as eileen, psycho0 etc, and its roseI btw :P

But actually it's called

Echinopsis peruviana

Just like Trichocerus bridgesii is correctly known as Echinopsis lageniformis. I think there was a poll or something along those lines ages ago askin if ppl here preferred to use Echinopsis or Trichocereus, i cant remember what the outcome was but i do remember for a time i tried using Echinopsis but fell back into line and carried on calling them Trichocereus. It just seemed easier to continue with tricho and for noobs who didnt know otherwise it has sure saved alot of confusion on their part and alot of explanations on our part. Yes i understand that it is not "correct" to use the name tricho anymore but then if we enforce the Echinopsis law will we have to let ppl know continually that every time they call it Echinopsis peruvianUS or Echinopsis bridgesii they are still not using the correct names? Would be alot of noise for no great reason i think considering how little some new members actually research things for themselves on a subject such as cacti

To me using the name tricho or rosei is akin to older folks calling the radio a wireless, same things different names used by older generations. If ppl here wish to use Echinopsis over Tricho then feel free to do so, there is no rules as such sayin to use one or the other but afaic Trichocereus is the accepted name HERE. If that doesnt sit well with some ppl then i suggest a poll and strict enforcement of the outcome :P

Yes Trichocereus roseii is just a certain clone of Trichocereus peruvianus, it would be better called Trichocereus peruvianus var. roseii!

Why do you think that would be better teotz?

T. rosei is a name from days gone by, still clung to by the son of the man that had the plants imported many many years ago when the name was obviously in use and somewhat commonplace. It has a great story behind it that when looked into can reveal not only alot about the history of TRICHOCEREUS in Australia but the politics of naming cacti by the big guns early in the 1900s. Like i have mentioned many times, it is a beautiful clone that stands out in the huge crowd of columnars we are lucky to have here, wether you call it Echinopsis peruviana v. rosei#1 or Trichocereus rosei is up to you but i know where it is in my collection and ill continue to keep the history behind it alive by obliging and respecting an aging collector and using the name he has for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'd like to know is do these plants we talk about, ie; Roseii #1 and 2 actually exist outside of OZ...?

I mean does anyone overseas have what they believe to be the same plant... or are these plants uniquely Australian...I dunno I'm just wondering if it's a plant that came about due to some natural cross pollination of a couple of other older plants back in the 20's, or purposely cross pollinated by the owners maybe...?

Don't think in any of the cactus threads on any ethno board that I've browsed have seen this plant outside of Australia. Mr Smith might clarify this could he not, perhaps you might know Pass...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trucha posted some pics taken by someone (cant recall rite now) visiting peru of Tperuvianus there. The pups on some of them look identical to pups on rosei. Im off to bed now but ill find it all tmoro and post offending pics here :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay well I've browsed through Mr Truchas link and found a few that look remarkably similar to Norma and Roseii.

these be the ones that I thought looked very similar...

Trichocereus glaucus KK336/KK336 images...to me these look a lot like Roseii and Norma.

KK336_98_jpg.jpg

KK336_6_jpg.jpg

glaucus_Knize_a.jpg

Trichocereus longispina KK1670

KK1670_M45_1_jpg.jpg

Below...The one on the right is almost a dead ringer for the plant I currently have..the notes say...

Trichocereus pachanoi (the cultivar that predominates in US horticulture) is on the left; On the right is Trichocereus peruvianus (new tip growth on a clone obtained by GF from Carl Eltzner). My plant on far right.

pach_per.jpg7618885.jpg

http://www.troutsnotes.com/ unfortunately a lot of the links and image files don't load or generate an error report, but what is available to see is pretty damn close to what these Roseii's look like.

Edited by Chiral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Images from sacred succulents..

KK1668.jpgKK336.jpg

This is also called Glaucous at SS.

P1010046_N.jpgP1010043_N.jpg

T. Peruvians Matucana

comparison_ressler.jpg

T.macrogonus (SD.) Ricc. (T.) KK923

Cienguillas. Bol. 3000m

t_macrogonus.jpg

Random find on line in someones garden...nice looker similar to roseii 2

2158877470075508785S600x600Q85.jpg

This ones named Trichocereus "argentinensis"

1469262888075508785S600x600Q85.jpg

Edited by Chiral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there was a poll or something along those lines ages ago askin if ppl here preferred to use Echinopsis or Trichocereus, i cant remember what the outcome was

I remember Echinopsis won, but for the large, psychoactive "Echinopsis" I still call them Trichocereus.

This is also called Glaucous at SS.

That is NOT the Trichocereus glaucous Sacred Succulents sold me.... dude... your thinking of Sacred Cactus NOT Sacred Succulents!

Edited by Teotzlcoatl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone can name their plants what ever they want as PD mentioned recently, but there is a purpose for taxonomy.

For the sake of communication/debate there needs to be an objective system.

The idea is that through taxonomy we are able to communicate an understanding of the differences between plants. The level of separation comes down to the value of the taxonomic rank in question.

I think that if anyone wants to know the name of their plants there needs to be an understanding of the different levels of separation.

post-2413-1258063019_thumb.png Wiki ref

Beyond the level of species there are more specific terms such as 'clone', 'variety', 'cultiva'. It's these last three terms which should be looked at.

If I say that I have a Trichocereus peruvianus then I am saying that 'peruvianus' is the species. If I'm mentioning a Trichocereus roseii#1, at face value this means that 'roseii#1' is the species. Obviously this is wrong, so how are people meant to know the difference?

So, does anyone actually know what all the Trichos talked about here are in terms of 'clone', 'variety' or 'cultiva'?

Knowing the Australian history of Trichocereus is the key to being able to classify them using these finer terms.

I know a lot of you guys know the difference but when it comes to people learning about how to tell plants apart I think it's crucial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the levels of separation continue past "species" onto "variation", "strain", "cultivar" and "clone".

Whoops...

Beyond the level of species there are more specific terms such as 'clone', 'variety', 'cultiva'. It's these last three terms which should be looked at.

You said that!

If I say that I have a Trichocereus peruvianus then I am saying that 'peruvianus' is the species. If I'm mentioning a Trichocereus roseii#1, at face value this means that 'roseii#1' is the species. Obviously this is wrong, so how are people meant to know the difference?

That is why I suggested Trichocereus peruvianus var. roseii!

Edited by Teotzlcoatl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that the two roseii's are clones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember Echinopsis won, but for the large, psychoactive "Echinopsis" I still call them Trichocereus.

That is NOT the Trichocereus glaucous Sacred Succulents sold me.... dude... your thinking of Sacred Cactus NOT Sacred Succulents!

LMAO...congratulations Teotz you have officially found the most petty and trivial discrepancy ever found on the web since it's incarnation in the 80's....rofl.gif

seriously....mellow.gif

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atm, most ppl that are aware of rosei dont often use the full name Trichocereus rosei but it is shortened to just rosei, when ppl ask me what it is well thats easy, its a Tperuvianus. I havent seen a thread or even a post in regards to the use of names such as yowie bruce psycho0 etc as being incorrect after all it has come to the point where i (wrongly) assumed that rosei was known as a name for a particular clone with known origins, which can sometimes can be a rarity (history of a plant that is). I havent seen anyone try to argue the point that rosei is in fact the correct name for it only that it was once known by that name and it is still used by some to differentiate the clone from other peruvianus clones. In the US there are clones such as SS02, lumberjackus and Juuls, these plants arent called T. bridgesii v. Lumberjackus and so on from what i have seen because most ppl know what is what and if they dont they ask.

That isn't an accepted name, but it does help with communication.

And in the end thats what it all comes down to. Are we here to please the cacti boffins or are we here to try and communicate ideas and share knowledge, making things easier for us rather than trying to impress some expert that has never heard of the corroboree is more important imo. Yes i understand that it is good to get things right in the first place but if that was the case we would all be using the name Echinopsis rather than the unaccepted Trichocereus. Only one person i know of uses the name Trichocereus rosei as the true name and im not about to try argue the point with him, he has done more for cacti in Australia than all of us put together and imo he can call plants whatever he pleases lol, he knows what is where and who is what, a clear picture in his mind that doesnt need to be messed up with petty naming BS.

Give it another 10 or 20 years and the names will no doubtedly change again, perhaps even Echinopsis will be split again and we might get Trichocereus back :) who the fudge knows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you coming from.

I find the discussion of taxonomy so far removed from the act of growing the plants.

At the end of the day if we want to talk about this stuff, what's important is that everyone is on the same page.

I'm worried that people just getting into learning about all this will misinterpret what they read here, which results in all these pointless discussions on taxonomy.

PD, how can you assume that everyone starting out has the preconception of the difference between a 'species', 'clone', 'variety' or 'cultiva' when they come to SAB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PD, how can you assume that everyone starting out has the preconception of the difference between a 'species', 'clone', 'variety' or 'cultiva' when they come to SAB.

? whaddya mean

it has come to the point where i (wrongly) assumed that rosei was known as a name for a particular clone with known origins

Is that what ya gettn at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that's pretty much it, sorry if I didn't make sense.

I think a lot of people make this assumption in discussion which leads to misunderstanding for new people.

I don't know, can this be helped or is it inevitable in this social environment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh i basically made the assumption ppl understood that it is a peruvianus that has been known as rosei in the past as a proper name and now to keep track of that certain clone the name rosei has been kept just like other clones have been named. I mean i get asked what the named clones actually are all the time, i think the confusion surrounding rosei is that ppl cant get their head around that it is a peruvianus clone, that peruvianus was once called rosei and that name is still used when talking about this particular clone. The sooner ppl understand noone is arguing about the true name of the thing and its the name of a clone the better. Confusion amongst new members is always gon happen especially with the amount of named clones doin the rounds, some ppl find it hard to tell the diff between C peruvianus and T pach sometimes and a simple explanation or shove in the right direction is all we can do and will have to continue to do i think. In the past i guess i have helped create this confusion tho as i sometimes used T. rosei where i should prolly have just used rosei, either way, its easy to see what it really is, just like its easy to see what eileen is, i think we are lucky here in AU to have such plants.

i think that makes sense lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, makes sense. I agree with you.

I might add to this discussion later once I've had time to reflect. I appreciate your thoughts. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LMAO...congratulations Teotz you have officially found the most petty and trivial discrepancy ever found on the web since it's incarnation in the 80's....

No big deal, just pointing it out.

I Wouldn't want somebody to order from Sacred Succulents and get the wrong cactus because you made a mistake in posting the vendor's name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my T.Argentensis :) Quite possibly my favourite trich :) Or is that T.Pach var Argentensis?

Oh, and posting KK numbers is quite hopeless, KK is renound for mislabelled seed and cuttings.

_MG_5472.jpg

_MG_5474.jpg

Edited by bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay well I've browsed through Mr Truchas link and found a few that look remarkably similar to Norma and Roseii.

The plant people are calling Norma is Roseii. More nonsense.

Thanks PD, your posts were great. Hopefully now I have less people asking me for a Trichocereus roseii cutting.

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

×