tripsis Posted January 9, 2011 Wondering if anyone has experience using Pereskia species as grafting stock? Would they confer comparable growth rates to scions as Pereskiopsis species do? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gnostic Posted January 9, 2011 No personal experience myself, but I have read growth is slower comared to peresikiopsis if the graft is successful Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bℓσωηG Posted January 9, 2011 I suspect that Pereskia is hard to find in Australia so not sure if there would be many using it... there was a form listed in a catalog with goldish leaves which is not very fast growing , more an ornamental and useless for grafting compared to the more weedy rapid growing green one which i have not heard anyone possessing ...i think its classified as a weed , i may be wrong... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted January 9, 2011 Which species are you talking about blowng? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bℓσωηG Posted January 9, 2011 Pereskia aculeata var. godseffiana , they have it listed for sale here http://www.cactusland.com.au/plantlist/plcactmz.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted January 9, 2011 Pereskia autumnalis is for sale on Ebay at the moment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bℓσωηG Posted January 9, 2011 hmmm... looks like a pereskiopsis, pretty bad pic, hope hes not mislabeling lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hellonasty Posted January 9, 2011 Yeah I agree that one on Ebay is Pereskiopsis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) Seems to be a synonym for Pereskia lychnidiflora, of which web pics look fairly similar, although it's hard to say due to the low quality photo on Ebay. Edit: actually it does look very similar to Pereskiopsis. Edited January 9, 2011 by tripsis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutant Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) Pereskia ID thread hey, I did some work on my roof today. I took out the oldest individual of that Pereskia which was in a pot with other cacti, including a Tephrocactus, a Myrtillocactus and a Trichoecereus bridgesii 2.5 y.o seedling, as i thought it steals the food from them and indeed it grew a lot and I had to prune it many times, also had to prune it before I dragged it out. Note this is only a smal portion of the total roots. They are fat as fuck! Yes this is slower than pereskiopsis. But 1. It has very impressive roots. 2. It has no glochids ! 3. It seems like longer lasting, compared to Pereskiopsis I am using, and it is more robust, far more, so it could support more weight. This is a pretty dangerously-spined plant that's better not be in your way. ..... yes I did some grafting attempts with it today, 4 tips I did. I hope it's not too early. I don't have high hopes for one of the 4, as the tips had little new growth and the particular one was done lower and the ring felt rather hard. but I hope one of the other 3 take at least. Edited February 27, 2011 by mutant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted February 27, 2011 I collected some P. aculeata some weeks ago now and potted the cutting up much the same as you would Pereskiopsis; i.e., no callousing, straight into moist soil. This was a mistake. Several of the cuttings rotted, all of them severely wilted. It's taken all that time for the ones that didn't rot to have become turgid once more. The tips are too weak to want to graft to, but the mid cuts seems too woody as well. I'll give grafting a go with them soon. Having no glochids is excellent though. The spines are more like small thorns, so very easy to handle. Good luck with your mutant, keep us updated. Did you just flat graft? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutant Posted February 27, 2011 yes flat [not on the plant depicted though], but now that you mention, impaling might be good option with those as they're pretty hard. they're slower, they need time to root. I was hasty too today. They are very nicely soft later in the growing season. And this is supposedly a pro with grafting. I did not graft seedlings but pups, and no pressure was applied except the initial and final. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted February 27, 2011 I've been old that impaling is the way to go with Pereskia and that growth should be about three times that of Pereskiopsis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
planthelper Posted February 28, 2011 there is a big (~3m) pereskia plant in the rocky botanical gardens, it sure would have to produce more growth than pereskiopsis, as it get's much bigger than peres and the stems get around 5 times as thick as peres!! i always wanted to give it a go as stock. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pinegapcontrol Posted February 28, 2011 are you talking about this - http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Pereskia-autumnalis-Succulent-cacti-/380205265005?pt=AU_Plants_Seeds_Bulbs&hash=item5885fff06d If so i bought some and can put up a few pics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted February 28, 2011 No, the conclusion was that the one on Ebay is actually Pereskiopsis. But if yopu can provide better pictures of it to be sure, that would be great. What you want is Pereskia aculeata. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pinegapcontrol Posted February 28, 2011 one took much quicker than the other, but theyre both coming good now Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted February 28, 2011 It looks like Pereskiopsis. Does it have glochids? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pinegapcontrol Posted February 28, 2011 No, definately not. and it looks about 5 times thicker than my perskiopsis. Ill put up a pic of them next to each other. It came labelled as autumnalis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted February 28, 2011 Well then, I guess it is what it says it is, which is a synonym for Pereskia lychnidiflora. I'm only familiar with P. aculeata and only recently familiar at that. Interested in trading a cutting of yours for one of mine? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pinegapcontrol Posted February 28, 2011 here it is next to my pereskiopsis, i dont think my pereskiopsis is as healthy as it could be but the difference is obvious. Those two in the first pics are the only ones i have and theyve only really just taken so i wouldnt mind holding onto them for a while. they were 7 bucks on ebay, i forget the post cost but if you spend 30 with her post is free. i spent 31 ( bit cheeky i know ) and got an invoice for 55 and i had to point out that the add says free post over 30 bucks, no other problems at all though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted February 28, 2011 They do indeed look quite different. Your Pereskia species has much more succulent leaves than mine, more like Pereskiopsis, which is what initially made me think it looked like Pereskiopsis. The lack of glochids means it can't be a Pereskiopsis species. Here's some info on Pereskia lychnidiflora from the book "The Cactus Family". Pereskia lychnidiflora A. P. de Candolle 1828ARBOL DEL MATRIMONIO, CRUZ DEL MATRIMONIO, GUITITACHE, MANZANOTE, MATEADO, MATEARES, MATIAL, PATILON Rhodocactus lychnidiflorus (A. P. de Candolle) F. M. Knuth 1935 Pereskia opuntiiflora A. P. de Candolle 1828, Pereskiopsis opuntiiflora (A. P. de Candolle) Britton & Rose 1907 Pereskia pititache Karwinsky ex Pfeiffer 1837, Opuntia pititache (Pfeiffer) F. A. C. Weber 1898, Pereskiopsis pititache (Pfeiffer) Britton & Rose 1907 Pereskia nicoyana F. A. C. Weber 1902, Rhodocactus nicoyanus (F. A. C. Weber) F. M. Knuth 1935 Pereskiopsis autumnalis Eichlam 1909, Pereskia autumnalis (Eichlam) Rose 1909, Rhodocactus autumnalis (Eichlam) F. M. Knuth 1935 Pereskia conzattii Britton & Rose 1919, Rhodocactus conzattii (Britton & Rose) Backeberg 1958 Plants treelike, to 10 m (33 ft) tall; trunks 30-40 cm (12-16 in) in diameter, rough and fissured. Leaves elliptic to obovate, one or two per areole, 2-8 cm (0.8-3.1 in) long, 1-4 cm (0.4-1.6 in) broad, petioles inconspicuous, venation pseudopalmate, lateral veins 2-6. Spines 1-3 on twigs, 2-7 cm (0.8-2.8 in) long. Spines 10-30 on trunks, spreading, 3- 12 cm (1.2-4.7 in) long. Flowers terminal, solitary, bright yellowish orange, to 6 cm (2.4 in) in diameter. Fruits pear shaped to spherical, 2.5—4 cm (1—1.6 in) in diameter, greenish yellow, nearly smooth, wall somewhat leathery. Distribution: disjunct occurrence from southern Mexico to Costa Rica in lowland dry forest from sea level to 1000 m (3300 ft). Spines of Pereskia lychnidiflora have been used as needles in Guatemala (Chapter 2, under Other Uses of Cacti). I must say, the photo of the plant on Ebay doesn't look like it's likely to turn into a 10m tree with a 30cm - 40cm diameter trunk. Perhaps it's a different Pereskia species? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pinegapcontrol Posted February 28, 2011 shit. i wasnt expecting it to grow like that, i was expecting a vine sought of thing, i wouldnt have thought it would get much thicker than what it is now, just branch and bush out. There was a pic on here not long ago of one that looks like my pereskia and it was a one metre plus cane, looked about the same thickness as mine too. wish i could remember whos photo it was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted February 28, 2011 Pereskia aculeata, the species I've got, is a vine/scrambler species. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutant Posted February 28, 2011 don't be so hurrying in you conclusions, both of you. It's still cacti we are talking about. my pereskiopsis can get over 1,5 cm dimaterer eventually, probably more, and i never put in the ground. Indeed my pereskia has not really succulent leaves but micoz plant's spines looks totally look unlike my peres. but hey, it's not 5 times fatter, huh? not yet anywayz hey tripsis you got photo of yours? does it look like mine? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
