Please help me id these Trichocereus

[neomad]

Hi all,

I recently started collecting trichs and have a nice small collection on the go including some seedlings. The trichs that I bought from garden centres were all badly labelled if at all so it would be great if anyone can help:

1.These were just sold as "Trichocereus" and I was told by a salesperson that they are pachanoi

2. Just labelled as "Trichocereus".

3. Just labelled as "Trichocereus".

4. This was labelled "Trichocereus Peruvianus"

5. And this was sold as "San Pedro"

Your input is much appreciated!

Edit:

6. One of the first additions to my collection. Sold as pachanoi.

7. The other first addition to the collection. Also sold as pachanoi.

Edited November 26, 2011 by neomad

[Heffa]

Holy shit, you luuuuuuuuuck mofo

I can really only say fo sure that the final 'san pedro' labeled one is a Trichocereus Bridgessi

The peruvianus looks correct and the fiirst looks like a trichocereus pachanoi or a cross.

WHAT a finddd! good work buddy!

[tipz]

1 is maybe Short spine peruvianoid ?

the last cactus is bridgesii

the 4th cactus is peruvian ?

the 5th cactus maybe cuzco or chilensis Unless the fifth is the same as the 4th.... im confused

there are actually five cacti too. so numbers 1-5 not 1-4

very nice trichs bro

Edited November 20, 2011 by tipz

[Heffa]

there are actually six cacti too. so numbers 1-6 not 1-4

 

Getting a little OCD tipzy my friend?

I am thinking maybe the peruvianus might have a little bridge in her... just from the second photograph. Anyway, they are all trichs as far as one could tell.

[tipz]

Getting a little OCD tipzy my friend?

I am thinking maybe the peruvianus might have a little bridge in her... just from the second photograph. Anyway, they are all trichs as far as one could tell.

 

lol... i dont have ocd... its cdo in the order it should be

where did you buy these neomad ?

I want me some !

Edt : And i should also say welcome to the forums. Its a good start to a collection

Edited November 20, 2011 by tipz

[neomad]

Holy shit, you luuuuuuuuuck mofo

I can really only say fo sure that the final 'san pedro' labeled one is a Trichocereus Bridgessi

The peruvianus looks correct and the fiirst looks like a trichocereus pachanoi or a cross.

WHAT a finddd! good work buddy!

 

Hehe. I have been searching for a bridgesii or any kind of "san pedro" for months now after deciding in about july to search for them. Yesterday I walked into a specialist cactus store and I found a monstrose too! ;) You can see it in my gallery. I then asked if they had any regular bridgesii in stock was told no, normal bridgesii are "not interesting". I thought: "hmmm, are you sure you know what you are talking about?" I carried on looking around the store and noticed number 5 and they told me it's a san pedro and I thought: "f*** me that looks a lot like a bridgesii." They also had some beautiful looking 2 foot pachanois but I only had enough cash for the two bridgesiis.

I am over the moon with my collection and there are some more not pictured here. Man I have spent a lot of money until now driving around searching for some decent nurseries (not to mention what I had to pay for the cactuses themselves) but I think I have finally struck gold!

1 is maybe Short spine peruvianoid ?

the last cactus is bridgesii

the 4th cactus is peruvian ?

the 5th cactus maybe cuzco or chilensis

there are actually six cacti too. so numbers 1-6 not 1-4

very nice trichs bro

 

Okay, OP edited. Now 1 - 5. The first pic is of two cacti of the same type and pic 2 has the cactus from pic 1 in the background so 1 - 5! ;)

I actually have four specimens like the ones in pic 1!

I am really curious about number 4. It would be awesome if it was a peruvianus but it looks suspiciously like a cuzcoensis.

Thanks a lot for the answers!

I can't friggin' wait for spring to replant them and watch 'em grow! I'll be sure to post more pics when they have grown some more!

Edited November 21, 2011 by neomad

[Gunter]

in my opinion you have some very interesting plants there

#4 is a bridgesii, that is easy enough

#3 (the 2nd number three) is very cuzcoensis like, so is likely that or an ally of it

The first number three is very interesting, it seems to be a possible hybrid, it is hard to say what it is

i would say that #1 and #2 look like peruvianoid forms, which can vary in how long their spines are.

I don't see anything i would call pachanoi

I would say that the 2nd number 3 is the only one that i don't think is San Pedro, which is name that applies to most of the sacred species, it is not specific to any form or type whatsoever.

[neomad]

lol... i dont have ocd... its cdo in the order it should be

where did you buy these neomad ?

I want me some !

Edt : And i should also say welcome to the forums. Its a good start to a collection

 

Thanks for the welcome!

I live in europe so I don't think it will help you at all to name the sources unfortunately.

If however anyone lives in central europe and would like to know where exactly they were bought just send me a pm!

Edit: My numbering has caused a lot of confusion I see. Sorry about that.

Edited November 20, 2011 by neomad

[neomad]

in my opinion you have some very interesting plants there

I would say that the 2nd number 3 is the only one that i don't think is San Pedro, which is name that applies to most of the sacred species, it is not specific to any form or type whatsoever.

 

Thanks, well if only one of them is not a San Pedro then I am mighty chuffed. Especially considering the other ones I have that are not pictured here!

To clarify for anyone confused by the numbering, the second number 3 Gunter is referring to I have relabelled as number 4.

More photos to come in spring!

[neomad]

i would say that #1 and #2 look like peruvianoid forms, which can vary in how long their spines are.

I don't see anything i would call pachanoi

 

Interesting you should say that. When I first brought them home I put them down next to a large peruvianus cutting I have and thought that they do look quite similar.

[bogfrog]

number three looks like a azureocereus hertlingianus to me

[neomad]

number three looks like a azureocereus hertlingianus to me

 

It does look somewhat similar to this one:

(Source: cactiguide.com)

The first time I saw it, I did not think it looked very trichocereus like.

I guess i'll see when it grows bigger.

[M S Smith]

#1 looks to be T. pachanoi while #2 appears to be T. peruvianus. #3 is the one that threw me off a bit...might be what bogfrog said. #4 is clearly T. cuzcoensis while #5 is obviously T. bridgesii.

~Michael~

[CβL]

I would personally label them as such:

1) Pachanoi/Peruvianus hybrid. The areoles are far too big in my opinion to belong to a traditional 'pachanoi', while the profile seems also more peruvianoid (quite stepped), lastly something about the glaucous bloom does not suggest pachanoi to me - seems too thick.

2) A Peruvianus/macrogonoid plant. It will probably grow more of the long centrals as it gets larger and then it will look more distinctive and be more easily described.

3) I'd probably say with 90% certainty that it's Azureocereus, although I have seen Trichocereus plants that are extraordinarily similar, but I think the areoles are a bit too oval for that.

4) A cuzcoensis hybrid, either with bridgesii or peruvianus. Distinctive areoles and spines that are characteristic of cuzcoensis, but it's far too glaucous to be a "pure" cuzcoensis. I would probably say that due to the girth, I would presume that it's more slightly more likely to be a bridgesii cross. But it's a very unique plant, and I would say that it probably has a convoluted lineage, more so than I have guessed here.

5) A classic bridgesii, HOWEVER, due to the emerging spines being almost full length, I would make a distinction between it and the bridgesii with emerging spines that are tiny. I know the 'Cactus Kate' clone, and cactus-art clones are both like this, but most of my plants are the latter type. I don't know if there are any other differences or if my distinction is artificial, but I have a hunch that there's a qualitative difference in genetics.

[Gunter]

1) Pachanoi/Peruvianus hybrid. The areoles are far too big in my opinion to belong to a traditional 'pachanoi', while the profile seems also more peruvianoid (quite stepped), lastly something about the glaucous bloom does not suggest pachanoi to me - seems too thick.

 

What?

You mean that if someone grows a peruvanus plant with shorter spines that it isn't pachanoi?

I'm kidding of course, it is just hilarious to think that the major distinction between the two so called species is the length of spines.

Fat blue peruvianus populations with short spines are known, i can't figure out what trait in the depicted plants would indicate pachanoi. Could someone please explain it to me?

[neomad]

Curiouser and curiouser...

Thanks for the answers everyone!

[M S Smith]

What?

You mean that if someone grows a peruvanus plant with shorter spines that it isn't pachanoi?

I'm kidding of course, it is just hilarious to think that the major distinction between the two so called species is the length of spines.

Fat blue peruvianus populations with short spines are known, i can't figure out what trait in the depicted plants would indicate pachanoi. Could someone please explain it to me?

 

Certainly some considered them the same species as there really isn't a difference botanically speaking (flower characteristics), but that doesn't mean using spine length and glaucescence as indicators of the "species" isn't of some value. And though there are clearly some T. peruvianus plants that bear shorter spines I wouldn't have a problem differentiating it from what I would call T. pachanoi. T. peruvianus is the wolf, and T. pachanoi the dog as far as I am concerned; the wolves pretty much look the same with some minor differences, while dogs vary quite a bit, but I've said plenty about this elsewhere.

~Michael~

[tipz]

Neomad, can you get some more close up pictures of number one maybe in better light ?

Do some types of pachenoi have dark red spination like cactus number one ?

[CβL]

I didn't actually mean the spine length. I meant the pad size of the areole.

I own a few Peruvianus plants that have not decided to grow long centrals yet, with a few on the older growth shown to produce 1.5 inch centrals. The spine thickness on the other hand, they seem a bit on the narrower side of things, what I would expect from a pachanoi hybrid.

Lastly I personally own some 'Pachanoi' plants that do indeed grow dark red spines from beginning (some even grow black spines), however I suspect they are hybridized from further down the line. Once I get more consistent growth, I'll make a nice guide to the clones available in New Zealand, and how I would estimate to breed that plant from archetypal plants.

[Gunter]

thank you for sharing the reasoning behind your assertions βluntmuffin

as for the whole wolf/dog thing, there seems to be a lot of diversity among them wolves and a lot less among the dogs, in this case, seems to me that Smith might have it backwards, not saying that is the case, but that is just what it seems to me

i'd love to hear more about this from someone more familiar with the plants, like someone who has studied them in the Andes and seen the variations first hand, being a collector i don't have a clue what i am talking about, all i have to go on are my specimens and photographs, so i am essentially ignorant about the topic, despite wanting to assert my conclusions as being informed

[CβL]

i'd love to hear more about this from someone more familiar with the plants, like someone who has studied them in the Andes and seen the variations first hand, being a collector i don't have a clue what i am talking about, all i have to go on are my specimens and photographs, so i am essentially ignorant about the topic, despite wanting to assert my conclusions as being informed

It goes without saying that most of us are in the same position, and have only access to photos and whatever plants and seeds manage to make it back from South America. However, I would argue that your research into hybrids is extremely valuable due to the nature of the "wild" Trichocerei - they freely hybridize, and there's little to suggest they haven't been doing so of their and our accord for 10,000 years. I think that going to the Andes would not automatically make a person into an informed Trichocereus researcher, which is unfortunate for a few people (of which I think you may know one) who believe so.

[Gunter]

It goes without saying that most of us are in the same position, and have only access to photos and whatever plants and seeds manage to make it back from South America. However, I would argue that your research into hybrids is extremely valuable due to the nature of the "wild" Trichocerei - they freely hybridize, and there's little to suggest they haven't been doing so of their and our accord for 10,000 years. I think that going to the Andes would not automatically make a person into an informed Trichocereus researcher, which is unfortunate for a few people (of which I think you may know one) who believe so.

 

The pollination syndrome of the plants and the geography of the Andes results in a lot of isolation.

I've seen a lot of evidence that many of the traits we employ to ID these plants are unreliable.

Researching the plants with experts like Carlos Ostolaza, in their native habit, for years, doesn't count as something that gains expertise?

[neomad]

Neomad, can you get some more close up pictures of number one maybe in better light ?

 

I'll get out the dslr on the weekend and pray for sunshine!

If possible I'll photograph the whole lot again.

[neomad]

If anyone is still interested...

The sun is not playing nice so I took a few new pics at midday and added them to the OP. The larger cacti I just photographed in the cellar, I don't have time to take 'em out and put 'em back.

I added pics of another two cacti which I bought much earlier. If anyone would like to suggest what they might be, please go ahead!

Edited November 26, 2011 by neomad

[CβL]

Researching the plants with experts like Carlos Ostolaza, in their native habit, for years, doesn't count as something that gains expertise?

I meant someone whose name rhymes with teapotz. ;)

Edited November 27, 2011 by βluntmuffin

[dionysus]

number three looks very much like azureocereus/browningia hertlingianus. i own several of these, the pattern of new growth is very telling. my avatar demonstrates this. it should get some nice fat spines with age.