How to recognise a Cuzcoensis

[Quixote]

Well, I am not one of the experts here, so I hope I am allowed to start a new thread in the series of "how to recognise.."

It seems that a lot of people are wondering about Cuzcoensis, myself included. Is it a variety of E. Peruvianus, or is it more closely related to E. Bridgesii?

In any case, what are the distinguishing features?

(I did some searches on these forums and on the web, and there didn't seem to be any consensus at all...)

Some of the things I have read about Cuzcoensis:

• It grows only natively around the Cuzco area in Peru.
  
• It basically has the same shape, form and spination as T. Peruvianus.
  
• The ribs grow in a slightly "wavy" shape.
  
• Some say the spination differs in that Cuzcoensis is supposed to have a strong central spine, whereas Peruvianus doesn't.
  
  Personal observation: this is not reliable. I have a certified Peruvian Torch that has some areoles with strong central spines, others without.
  
• Others say the Cuzcoensis has two central spines in each areole, whereas Peruvianus and Pachanoi have a single spine. One spine points upwards at an angle, the other downwards.
  
  Personal observation: this is not reliable. I have a certified Peruvian Torch that has some areoles with one central spine pointing upwards, and another pointing downwards.
  
• The spines turn bone-white after ageing a bit, whereas Pedro and Peruvianus keep some colouration of the spines.
  
• The Cuzcoensis looks like a "+" seen from above.
  
• It differs in other 'subtle ways' from the classical San Pedro.
  
• The base of mature spines seem darker than the midsection or tip. (After the spines have set and before they turn all white)
  
• The long central spines broaden out noticeably at the areole, in comparison to Peruvianus where the spines seem needle-like all the way to the areole.
  
  Personal observation: this is not reliable. I have a certified Peruvian Torch that has spines that are somewhat fatter at the base than towards the tip. Possibly they have to be even fatter at the base to signal a Cuzco trait.
  
• Ribs are more sharply defined than Peruvianus, whose ribs seem smoother/rounder in shape

Edited February 26, 2016 by Quixote

[Stillman]

it I believe is more similar to T peruvianus

heres a thread I started to add to this one.

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33476

Edited October 6, 2012 by Stillman

[Quixote]

heres a thread I started to add to this one.

 

Yes, I used a bit of info from that thread, hoping to be able to compile a good list here.

[Mr. Bowser]

IME there are a couple other common traits of cuzcos

The base of mature spines seem darker than the midsection or tip. (After the spines have set and before they turn all white)

The long central spines broaden out noticeably at the areole, in comparison to peru where the spines seem needle-like all the way to the areole.

Peru ribs seem smoother/rounder in shape, but I can't really explain this one adequately

[Quixote]

I added your info to the original post Mr. Bowser. If anyone disagrees with any of the signs of the Cuzco, let me know and I'll modify it again to make sure it reflects the consensus here.

[Evil Genius]

Well, I am not one of the experts here, so I hope I am allowed to start a new thread in the series of "how to recognise.."

Im not someone who is impressed by postcount. I treat everyone the same and there are no limitations about who can start a certain topic or not. The Thread is factually correct and pretty much overdue so i will pin it. Personally, i consider Cuzcoensis to be a subspecies to Peruvianus but thats not a reason not to have a Thread about it. bye Eg

[dawnbeaver]

I thought this might have been a Peruvianus but now I'm thinking Cuzcoensis.

"+" sign visible from above

The long central spines broaden out at the areole and wavy ribs

The bleaching of the spines is also there but not well shown in the pics.

[M S Smith]

Here'a a T. cuzcoensis at Ollantaytambo, Peru.

~Michael~

[Quixote]

I thought this might have been a Peruvianus but now I'm thinking Cuzcoensis.

"+" sign visible from above cuzcoensis top.jpg

The long central spines broaden out at the areole and wavy ribs cuzcoensis spines.jpg cuzcoensis a hansome fellow.jpg

The bleaching of the spines is also there but not well shown in the pics.

I have one that looked VERY similar to yours, but it changed a bit as it grew. Now I consider it a Peruvianus, possibly with a bit of Bridgesii in it too, as it grows a bit "uneven".

Yours seems to be a young plant too, give it a bit of time and see how it develops.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Quixote

[Quixote]

I updated the original post with some new info I have learned on these forums: that Cuzcoensis seems to have two central spines in each areole, one pointing up at an angle, one down.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Quixote

[mutant]

cuzcos grow much faster than peruvianus and macros

the base of the cuzco spines is always wide and pretty wider than any peruvianus or macrogonus.

those are too good indicators IME

[AZS]

Does anyone know what type of cactus this is - ? It was given to me as simply a "Peruvianus"

[Evil Genius]

Hi AZS, i guess you may have chosen the right Thread for the Pic! Looks like some Cuzcoensis Variety. Some people would consider this a Peruvianus what might technically be true. But i´ve seen Plants like that which were basically from the cuzcoensis complex.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Evil Genius

[mutant]

agreed

[Auxin]

This went against the usual trend, I got a few seeds marked bridgesii and got a cuzco in the mix (as well as a few noticeably different bridgies, I smell Karel )

Centrals start fat and straw colored at the base and dark at the tip, maturing to lighter tips with a dark base and a insertion thats flared and slightly kinked downward. Even the mature radials are flared at the insertion.