red flowered psuedocandicans

[bogfrog]

this is the first tricho we have had flower! .. and my what a beauty she is.

have a geez

[solomon]

wow, really nice colours

[btotl]

If that flower was a flavor it most definitely would be peaches & strawberries!

[naja naja]

Any chance u would mind collecting some pollen?

[M S Smith]

Pretty flower for sure, but just your run of the mill T. grandiflorus.

~Michael~

[bogfrog]

Pretty flower for sure, but just your run of the mill T. grandiflorus.

~Michael~

 

not what martin from coromandel cati sold it as and doubt he would be so rude

also i image searched t grandiflorus to check and its not the same, this has some longer spines and the flower came out light red then turned peachy, grandiflorus are way more red

Edited January 15, 2011 by bogfrog

[bogfrog]

Any chance u would mind collecting some pollen?

 

buga too late sorry

[M S Smith]

not what martin from coromandel cati sold it as and doubt he would be so rude

also i image searched t grandiflorus to check and its not the same, this has some longer spines and the flower came out light red then turned peachy, grandiflorus are way more red

 

Well I certainly don't think selling a cactus that isn't what the label says is "rude," but I can assure you that yours isn't T. pseudocandicans and does fall into the very diverse collection of similar plants that are often called "grandiflorus." These sorts of plants are also widely used in hybridization projects as can be seen in the Schick Hybrids. A slight difference in spination and flower color from other grandiflorus does not in the least rule this plant out as a "grandiflorus," but it should certainly rule your plant out as a T. pseudocandicans as T. candicans and T. pseudocandicans (Anderson has both a simply Echinopsis candicans) both have white night blooming flowers. Your plant is a red flowered day bloomer.

~Michael~

Edited January 15, 2011 by M S Smith

[solomon]

MSS:

Mesa has seed labeled as a red flowering pseudocandicans.

Maybe this is where the confusion could have come from.

Edited January 15, 2011 by centipede

[bogfrog]

what a snooty cacti nerd

Edited January 19, 2011 by bogfrog

[bℓσωηG]

what a snooty cacti nerd

cacti nerd sure but Michael is on to it bro

[bogfrog]

superiority grinds my gears is all

[M S Smith]

If writing educated and thorough analyses of a subject one truly cares for is being snooty or superior then I'll accept your intended slights with nobility.

~Michael~

[PD.]

Michael, could it not be psuedocandicans although a hybrid with an echinopsis. The flowers are a little different from what id expect ( difficult with pictures alone i admit )and def not from a candicans or pseudocandicans for the reason you have already stated but a hybrid with echinopsis of sorts could bring about the same flowers as what the OP has pictured quiet easily. With the mother plant being psuedocandicans and the donor plant an echinopsis a commercial grower would most likely label with the mothers name for simplicity, not a stretch at all surely. Into the grandiflorus basket it may fall for simplicity for some but that isnt any reason to write the psuedocandicans name out completely especially when it may very well be the case, the seller is being honest.... just not telling the full story. Another reason to bug the crap out of growers and get the full story if they are willing to share the details, more often than not i guess some growers just assume ppl dont care, dont know or dont want to know.

for example, here is a T. candicans hybrid.

I also found this which may be of some interest.

The following article is taken from the Hybriden-Journal n.1/2000 of the German Arbeitsgruppe Echinopsis-Hybriden

It is not an exagerration to designate Trichocereus pseudocandicans (Backbg.)Kiesling in such a manner. The large flowers of this many coloured species, which open during the day, are among the most beautiful in the whole cactus kingdom, and are today still pretty much unknown. .As a contrast, the white nocturnal flowers of Trichocereus candicans where described as early as 1834 by Salm-Dyck as Cereus candicans (Gillies). The name candicans which means white blossoming originates with the Scottish Physician John Gillies who traveled in the Argentinian Andes and found this species in the area near Mendoza. The nomenclature of this species has had a very busy life. While Schumann kept the species with Cereus, it could in the meantime be found near Echinocereus by Rumpler, under Echinocactus by Pfeiffer, in the genus Trichocereus by Britton and Rose, and under Echinopsis by Weber , where it is again to be found according to the latest status of the systematics. Echinopsis candicans as the species will be called is widely distributed in the provinces. Mendoza, Cordoba, San Juan, La Roja and Catamarca and is highly variable as far as the body, spines and flowers are concerned. Schumann who made the first description of the flower indicates a flower lenght of 15cm (6in.) . In contrast I have experienced a flower lenght and diameter of 25cm (10in.) in my own collection. Echinopsis candicans is closely related to Echinopsis huascha (Web.)Friedr,Rowley and its many coloured variations, and probably leads to local natural hybrids, the earlier mentionated Trichocereus pseudocandicans or Echinopsis pseudocandicans the province La Rioja . Dr. Carlos Cult Hosseus mention a red blooming T.candicans in his book "Notas sobre Cactaceas Argentinas, Cordoba 1939". He apparently didn't see the flower himself, as he quotes a journal for Physicians "Ann. Asoc. Quicica Argentina" in which a certain Prof. Juan T. Lewis and Dr. L.Reti sighted and reported about this unusual flower near Chilecito a la Cuesta de Miranda in the province La Rioja in January 1933. Exactly 10 years later E.Vatter of Argentina reports in the Scweitzer Sukkulentkunde III concerning Trichocereus candicans which blossomed in wonderfull blod-red, lemon-yellow, and pink- violet colours. He also found his many colored Trichocereus Vatter 15 plants in the same habitat that, according to Rausch, are nothing other than huascha forms and it is inevitable that there would be natural hybrids with trichocereus candicans.Vatter reports further : "One must see these flowers oneself, in order to delight in the colorful disply and in this treasure." These cereus bushes are rare however, and one can only distinguish them from normal white blossoming plants while they are in flower. The original plant material was sent by Vatter to the City Succulent Collection in Zurich. At the beginning of the 70's Mr. Krainz answered my inquiry about what had happened to these cacty by informing me that the Vatter's plants had been frozen in a cold frame after a breakdown of the heating system. But that was not really bad as they "ONLY" been hybrids ! This of course did not deter my love of these unique plants and I was therefore grately pleased when Kiesling and Fechser sent me supposedly red flowering. Trichocereus candicans plant from Argentina in the early 70's which houever subsequently all showed yellow flowers.

My enthusiasm for this group of plants went so far that I flew to Argentina with a cactus friend to see these plants so to speak "in the flesh" . We did see thousands of large plants groups with up to 6 meters diameter, but only with white flowers. We were not to have the privilege of seeing the colorful flowering fireworks. I can only report of one exception. We sighted a red-flowering pseudocandicans in a house garden in a small town some 100 km south of Aimogasta. Even for the inhabitants hese colorful pseudocandicans are something special and rare, since they stand out in the sea of white blossoms. One of the reasons that these Echinopsis pseudocandicans are not to be seen in hour collections is because of their steams which are approx. 10cm (4 in.) thick and up to 1 meter (39 in.) long , building many headed groups which take up a lot of space. Individual steams of 20-30cm (8-12 in.) hight can already produce flowers in a sunny location. For the sake of beeing complete it should be mentioned that Backeberg defined the species pseudocandicans and placed it in the genus Helianthocereus. Before that however he described the species as Helianthocereus pecheretianus. A red flowering form was described by him as Trichocereus candicans v. roseiflorus which was later changed in Helianthocereus pseudocandicans v. roseiflorus. Ritter references the Backeberg Helianthocereus pseudocandicans as a synonym of candicans form rubriflorus. All of this nomenclatural ballast and the corrisponding confusion have not helped this species. But when one try to describe natural hybrids, perhaps it is inevitable. Robert Graser of Nuremberg (Germany) who it can be proved, crossed T. candicans with Aporocactus flagelliformis, Echinopsis grandiflora, Echinopsis kermesina, Echinopsis oxigona, Lobivia grandiflora, Lobivia huascha,Trichocereus purpureopilosus, Trichocereus schickendantzii and Vatter 15 yellow over 50 years ago, also created a large number of cultured hybrids. When one experiences these flowers with their finely differentiated color nuances, one sees that they are not in any way inferior to the natural hybrids. In Succulenta from 1996 Mr F. Van der Broeck reported about his trip trough Argentina and is compleately excited about this Echinopsis pseudocandicans and described it as a color festival in Sierra Famatina.Due to the locally very rare existance of this Echinopsis pseudocandicans many flower colors have only been seen on one plant and because of the large size of of the plant its reproduction and distribution in the collections of enthusiasts will be limited .

*some spelling may have been lost in translation.

[M S Smith]

Wow, thanks PD., what nice insights, thanks. I'm definitely going to save that article.

~Michael~

[solomon]

or could it just be the red flowered candicans Mesa offers?

sorry PD, will have to read through that later when i'm more awake

[Paisano]

i obtained this from mesa gardens...as a T. psuedocandicans suppose to get "huge yellow salmon red" flowers when mature but it shows considerable differences with regard to spination then the lead post picture labelled T.psuedocandicans. The spines are bigger than the diameter of the cacti and have a wavy-ness to them also the areoles appear to be further apart.... This one feels very nice in a metaphorical way of course. haha

[Evil Genius]

Pseudocandicans isnt really what i would consider to be a legit species. Its just that Candicans is extremely variable in Appearance and flower color. There are countless hybrids that grow all around the habitats and they breed very easily with each other. In fact, i sometimes like to get me wild Candicans seed because it is so extremely unpredictable. Some of the greatest hybrids that are around have wild Candicans in em...

[bogfrog]

Lol this thread makes me cringe a just little bit.

What a sassy wee bitch i can be, sorry MS Smith

[Paisano]

I know a horticulture professor and he cringes everytime i bring up taxonomy or binomial nomenclature of cacti.

[Evil Genius]

lol,havent really read the older posts yesterday. One of the problems with the so called pseudocandicans is that Backeberg created this group only to hide the trucksized holes in his taxonomic systems. In fact, it is one of the many problems of his flawed system. The problem starts when you try to push natural hybrids into a certain group. Its not possible. Like mentioned before, flower color is very instable and can change within one generation so it cant be used as a reliable taxonomic tool.