Jump to content
The Corroboree
trucha

Funniest ebay offering that I've seen in a while

Recommended Posts

Who would have thought that there was a market for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fuck I was just a little too late

someone should contact the buyer when they leave feedback

offer them 60 + a cow patty

that would totally make their day

remember... service to others

so someone please buy that fucking shaferi monstrose

its only been relisted about 30 times now

gotta appreciate his tenacity I guess....

there is a lot of plastic GI Joes for sale... hrm

http://www.ebay.com/itm/lot-of-199-plastic-army-men-green-grey-tan-dark-green-/200958174874?pt=Toy_Soldiers&hash=item2eca0a669a

I would totally consider getting my hands on that if I had the extra bones

Edited by Spine Collector
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good old Ebay. Its always good for a laugh :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

following trucha's link I found this priceless outrageous gem...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-fully-rooted-old-growth-Trichocereus-macrogonus-plants/321196219081

I hear tell that Michael Smith has been claiming that macrogonus is an invalid name, hence some people have incorrectly concluded that all plants labeled macrogonus are worthless. I decline to get into taxonomy debates with lumbers and splitters, although it is my understanding that macrogonus is essentially peruvianus that happens to come from Bolivia. However, I can assure you that my macrogonus are the very worthwhile RS0004 stain. Cuttings from this stain root easily. You will not be disapointed. Large showy white flowers. Spines are red in certain growing conditions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is some quality right there. Such impressive root system and incredible size for 20 year old plants.

I am on my phone so it is a bit hard to try and ID them even tho he has put up quality photos of these rare plants so you know exactly what you are buying.

You would think they would post some photos of the tips if they were such magnificent mature specimens.

Cheers

Got

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It would be ideal for making into a voucher specimen except that there is no collection data... and it has rotten pulp oozing out of the aereoles so it would not be useful for taxonomic identification once it gets dry."

"the mushy texture indicates that even with tissue culture this material is non-viable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seller is a good guy. He's got plants with good genetics, even though they're not in great shape when he lists them.

The prickly pear looks like a shaferi monstrose to me. Maybe it was a coded private listing. I suspect trucha may know more about it than he's letting on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the vendor is generally is an excellent source of fair priced cactus cuttings. I think these must have been run as jokes or else I am otherwise puzzled why he lists this set of ugly cuttings instead of beautiful ones that I know he sells directly to cactus lovers or how he can put that price tag on that particular shaferi monstrose. When this was first released by Oasis it would only be sold to people willing to enter into a formal agreement that they never sell cuttings for less than this price but that ceased being uniformly true once reached another layer of growers. Its only been in existence for a fairly short time as horticultural clone lines go.

To me the funniest part was that rotting to dead opuntia selling for $30 despite the clear description.

The photo does seem to be wrong. I don't think anything is coded or hidden. I was just amused by seeing it.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

check out the 'ariocarpus' in the 'see what other people are watching' category below the ad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoops! when I went back to check, the item of interest had disappeared. Sorry folks, false alarm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it a Lopho?

There has been someone marketing what appears to be fricii but mislabelled as asterias and other plants. My guess is perhaps the hope underlying it involves a potential buyer thinking it to be a williamsii that is being stealth marketed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha ha ha ha, I can't believe someone mentioned little ol' me on Ebay. I hope that doesn't lead anyone to blame me for others' conclusions.

Otherwise, just let me know when the authorities come to a conclusion regarding what plant actually is T. macrogonus, which will hopefully rule out the plethora of others that have gained the name with little more than a glance and a guess.

~Michael~

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know you have made the big time Michael when you make it onto facebook ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trucha, you hit the nail right on the head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite what a lot of people presently believe, macrogonus was never lost. Some remarkably clear images exist. The clearest early one is in Schell 1929 but it ties in nicely with those earlier which lacked good detail and Berger's grafting page is in nice alignment. No surprise that it looks like what most of us regard to be macrogonus (looking like one of the typical specimens of the RS#)

Glaziou's confused origin offering adding that bad image in Flora Braziliensis gets a lot of attention but most people miss the fact Schumann (the author of that piece in Flora Braziliensis) was rapidly corrected by Weber and Schumann actually published Weber's thoughts, suggesting the Andes was the right place of origin and included correct floral comments even before his article in Flora Braziliensis appeared in print. I suspect the confusion was so persistent as it was executed in English but only Berger's correction ever appeared in English. All of the other English language accounts got hung up in identifying what Glazious confused with macrogonus and gave Schumann bad info concerning.

Later Knize added some confusion (all but one of the confused things being called macrogonus can be tracked to Knize's seeds and the other one can be tracked directly to Bob Gillette) and prior to Knize Werdermann added some more confusion in print that a more cynical me might suspect to have been either alcohol related or a brain fart. And some people who have been confused have expounded upon their confusion in ways that have actually created an additional veneer of confusion rather than attempting any actual clarification. (The vast majority of that can be stripped away rather easily.)

Hunt therefore rejects it due to having confused application but the process of its resurrection as a good name is well underway.

If Hunt's logic is solid (its based on a sound option given in the Rules of Botanical Nomenclature) a number of names should be shitcanned including both spachianus and peruvianus.

I've created a rather thorough discussion of this subject that will be online soon. There are three pieces ongoing in parallel at the moment- this being the smallest one of them. (It was intended to go into the forthcoming updated version of the San Pedro book but will be released on its own earlier as I don't anticipate completing the San Pedro update until sometime next year after these three projects are done.)

All of those will become available in whatever order they are completed - their order of completion hinging on acquiring missing bits of the literature. I'm only lacking one reference for completing the macrogonus piece but it may take me a physical trip to the Huntington library in order to fill in that blank.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should any of us look forward to seeing the name T. peruvianus, and quite possibly T. pachanoi, being removed from the books and replaced as T. macrogonus subspecies because the name T. macrogonus, which lay hidden for nearly a century, and nevermind in confusion, now has been properly revealed?



I like that these matters are taken up in scholarly pursuit, but as has been repeated with effect, names are applied to plants for our ability to understand what we are discussing, and are dispensable to the plants themselves. If that is the case there is certainly no harm in the historiography of authors and their nomenclature, and though I take great appreciation in these efforts I have reservations about how well it in the end serves us.



~Michael~


Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How well it serves will entirely depend on the care taken for molecular work linking wild populations to cultivars and how well the wild samples are defined. That work is still in process so we will see what emerges.

Most of the real problems persisting with macrogonus revolve around a schizoid issue involving Backeberg & Werdermann in the 1930s and 1940s. I was a bit surprised when I stumbled on Schumann sorting out Glaziou's glitch decades earlier.

To me it appears to be coming together really nicely. Maybe it will can even be completed with a neatly tied bow but portions of the work are still in progress so I'm watching that with growing anticipation. I suspect you will be entertained by the analysis I've created of the subject up to that point.
Im curious about the ICBN stance on confusion and name abandonments as it seems to be capriciously applied. T. spachianus and Cereus peruvianus for instance both should have been chucked and renamed a long time ago. Macrogonus has far less confusion historically than does either of those two names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is starting to be worthy of its own thread, but regarding the names applied to plants of our particular interest, T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, T. macrogonus, T. santaensis, T. pallarensis, T. bridgesii, and I might as well throw in T. cuzcoensis and its seeming allies, T. tarmaensis and T. puquiensis, along with one I'm not quite sure where it fits, T. shoenii, which ones have truly "wild populations" which replicate by seed throughout a particular niche without any human support or intervention? I'm certainly not meaning a stray seed here and there, but rather situations similar to say the T. peruvianus of Obrajillo, the T. cuzcoensis of Ollantaytambo, or what I suspect are the T. schoenii of the Colca Canyon region.

Obrajillo, Peru.

post-19-0-00633800-1379245712_thumb.jpg

Ollantaytambo, Peru.

post-19-0-51926900-1379245891_thumb.jpg

Colca Canyon, Peru.

post-19-0-62684000-1379245943_thumb.jpg

I've been curious about this for some time and would love your thoughts.

~Michael~

post-19-0-00633800-1379245712_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-51926900-1379245891_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-62684000-1379245943_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-00633800-1379245712_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-51926900-1379245891_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-62684000-1379245943_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EG - I think I am within guidelines on discussing published analysis but please edit me if I cross any line! Thanks!

Michael:

One problem is cuzcoensis in particular has been intensively propagated and distributed for its fruit production (true also for peruvianus at least in the canyon of the Rio Chillon).

Its hard to say what is really wild and what is not. For instance if birds or gravity spreads seeds from a cultivated plant into rugged terrain are the offspring now a wild population? If the original planting was from a thousand years ago how can we know? And at what point in their history do those escapes become justifiably viewable as wild and established? 100, 1000, 10,000 years?

This appears to be a serious challenge around Ollantaytambo in particular where evidence of the remnants of ancient structures commonly exists on sheer rock faces in areas with abundant cuzcoensis and evidence of widespread propagation by humans. If something is on a cliff face can we be certain how it got there? Especially where seismic activity or landslides have obliterated what humans created. The many high drainage areas with lots of peruvianus growing in places humans can't reach beg similar questions on origin. Were those seeds carried there or did the mountains form around the plant populations?

Sadly, real field work circumscribing those names is lacking. Its going to be crucial for finding any answers.

its not just vital that people do field work its also important that there is much more meticulousness about defining what is being looked at. Pachanoi, peruvianus and macrogonus all lack clear meaning right now in that all three names have variable definitions that span ranges of morphological features. If a person analyzes something under any of those names and publishes their results, we may or may not actually know what they looked at.

Peruvianus for instance has been found to be devoid of alkaloids or not devoid of alkaloids. What was looked at in the five known analytical accounts? Outside of Pardanani's being grown by Abbey Garden from KK242 seeds and Ogunbodede's originating from a cutting from Knize we really don't know very much of anything more. Based on what we know about Knize's reliability there is even some additional undermining of that. I think I can summarize the rest of what is known by saying Djerassi's was wild (and found no alkaloid), Agurell's was European (and found no mescaline) and the Health Canada report likely involved dried material from Peruvian commerce (and found mescaline to be a minor alkaloid).

Schoenii is well represented in Colca Canyon and farther afield but its been stuffed into cuzcoensis as a synonym. I think that was the last direction I heard for the fate of puquiensis also?

Riomizquiensis was declared to be a variety of pachanoi by Nigel Taylor but what he published was just a name not a description.

Peruvianus is a bigger mess than pachanoi sadly. I'm hoping once Albesiano finishes the Peruvian portion of her monograph we have the ability to start creating a framework of definitions but there is no sense reinventing the wheel until seeing what she produces.

My biggest thought is that we all waste a huge amount of time discussing species while lacking any meaningful notion concerning what defines a species. Lacking that we all *at best* engage in what is essentially a variation on what Bretloth once amusingly referred to as a "pissing contest".

For instance, you and I have been discussing words like peruvianus and macrogonus for what? Something like 16 or more years now? Literally since the days when we were both struggling through the process it then required to even locate a bona fide specimen of either one. I suspect that many readers of this forum have no awareness of the picture during the 1990s and how very different it is today.

I'd suggest we might have better defined what we don't know but have not actually gained much of anything that is solid yet.

I enjoy discussing cacti but we all keep spinning around some areas unproductively due to lacking common shared definitions.

I'm still wanting to find a definition of species that botanists agree on. The only simple and clean definition I'm aware of is zoological (i.e. a breeding pair will produce stable and viable offspring) and that is obviously not real when applied to plants.

Edited by trucha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I just contacted that guy above selling the bedraggled Juul's giant plant for $1776.00 on ebay and offered him $1750.00 "but not a penny more" for it.. Let's see if he bites..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem is cuzcoensis in particular has been intensively propagated and distributed for its fruit production (true also for peruvianus at least in the canyon of the Rio Chillon). Its hard to say what is really wild and what is not. For instance if birds or gravity spreads seeds from a cultivated plant into rugged terrain are the offspring now a wild population? If the original planting was from a thousand years ago how can we know? And at what point in their history do those escapes become justifiably viewable as wild and established? 100, 1000, 10,000 years?

This appears to be a serious challenge around Ollantaytambo in particular where evidence of the remnants of ancient structures commonly exists on sheer rock faces in areas with abundant cuzcoensis and evidence of widespread propagation by humans. If something is on a cliff face can we be certain how it got there? Especially where seismic activity or landslides have obliterated what humans created. The many high drainage areas with lots of peruvianus growing in places humans can't reach beg similar questions on origin. Were those seeds carried there or did the mountains form around the plant populations?
As I see it whether by bird, gravity, or man, if a cactus is transported to a new location and roots and prospers through natural selection without continuous artificial supports then it is wild. For example, should we observe the same species of bird in two disparate locations, while also being aware of its primary origins, we wouldn't therefore claim one was “really wild” while the other wasn't. Should the new location provide fertile grounds for it we would say it too was wild, regardless of its having taken to a new location, or its means to get there. But should man be the means of the birds’ continuous survival in the new niche, meaning they would die otherwise, we would say that their presence there was unnatural, just as much as a penguin in LA. So if bird, gravity, or man was the vector of a cactus species from one location to the next should the new environment allow it to prosper, reproduce, and adapt through natural selection without human supports it is natural, and therefore “really wild.” It may not be endemic by our standards, but I think we could agree that a plants success isn’t built upon whether or not it’s in its endemic region, but rather whether or not it has propitious condition to survive and reproduce unaided.
So I’d say we have two known “wild” species among my original list, T. cuzcoensis and T. peruvianus, and this regardless of how they got there. I might presume T. schoenii of the Colca Canyon, but its common occurrence on the trails and in association with ruins could be the result of plantings, dropped limbs, and clippings, and not seedlings. I also question T. puquiensis, but more so because of seemingly similar plants at the Raqchi and Wari archeological sites. But what about T. pachanoi, T. pallarensis, T. santaensis, and T. tarmaensis? And what of T. bridgesii? As for T. scopulicola I know you mentioned the possibility that goats likely wiped out the wild populations. Do these others prosper through unaided seed dispersal and germination in whichever location they have happened to be found? I really don't know myself due to my obvious limitations and lack of resources, but one thing I like to think I have had in all these years is a far share of insight.

Sadly, real field work circumscribing those names is lacking. Its going to be crucial for finding any answers. its not just vital that people do field work its also important that there is much more meticulousness about defining what is being looked at. Pachanoi, peruvianus and macrogonus all lack clear meaning right now in that all three names have variable definitions that span ranges of morphological features. If a person analyzes something under any of those names and publishes their results, we may or may not actually know what they looked at.

Do you believe T. peruvianus, T. pachanoi, and T. macrogonus are the same species regardless of these variables of flower and plant morphology? I think we are in agreement that what needs to be considered regarding these three “species” is not what defines them in particulars, but rather what variables exist within them, and if these variables allow room for the three to be considered one. I had thought things were going in this direction. If this is the case I suppose I can see a bit better now why a proper name needs to be worked out. I'll leave the heavy lifting to the heavies and certainly look forward to progress, whichever direction that takes things.

My biggest thought is that we all waste a huge amount of time discussing species while lacking any meaningful notion concerning what defines a species. Lacking that we all *at best* engage in what is essentially a variation on what Bretloth once amusingly referred to as a "pissing contest". For instance, you and I have been discussing words like peruvianus and macrogonus for what? Something like 16 or more years now? Literally since the days when we were both struggling through the process it then required to even locate a bona fide specimen of either one. I suspect that many readers of this forum have no awareness of the picture during the 1990s and how very different it is today.

I'd suggest we might have better defined what we don't know but have not actually gained much of anything that is solid yet.
I enjoy discussing cacti but we all keep spinning around some areas unproductively due to lacking common shared definitions.
I'm still wanting to find a definition of species that botanists agree on. The only simple and clean definition I'm aware of is zoological (i.e. a breeding pair will produce stable and viable offspring) and that is obviously not real when applied to plants.
I certainly love these discussions and though I don't consider what you do, or the bits and pieces I throw out , a "pissing contest" (at least among us), I see it as rather a quest for understanding, and though that understanding is at times imperfect our public sharing of our thoughts can at least open this field to others and possibly compel others to greater accomplishments. I think I've said before that I will not be quiet simply because what I have to say might be incomplete or in error. If my words happen to be, well, then let's talk about it; I didn't get to know what I know except through being as critical of myself as I am of others.
~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows about something being extinct? I know at least four sets of people have searched out Ritter's scopulicola sites, including some people from the Kew including Taylor.

Is there still a stand in the next inaccessible canyon over? Or the one beyond that? I sure can't say.

Species come and go though. Extinction and the appearance of new species is a constant and ongoing process. Its not something that ever gets completed into stable enduring forms. Which underlies part of the challenge for defining something that needs to be described with ranges of features. In many ways what we want to call a species is always a work in progress.

I'm still not convinced that pachanoi was really created as a selection rather than being a natural product.

Most of what you've mentioned don't really seem to merit specific standing.

At the moment, bridgesii appears to be the only one of those with much distance from the rest based on the molecular data. I think it ended up closer to Weberbauerocereus than to pachanoi if I'm recalling right?

I'll be curious to see the outcome of Albesiano's work on the Bolivian and Peruvian Trichocereus species. I think all that is completed for the monograph is Chile?

In general I like cactus discussions but some of it gets tedious. Such as discussions of species that jump past starting out with a shared view of what makes something a species.

Its not a matter of us being right or wrong, much of this territory lies beyond right or wrong, its just discussions of observations and opinions. What I would suggest is that whether it is conducted for fun or work, adding a minimum degree of rigor in the form of shared definitions (or at least one shared definition) would add much to the discussions. Otherwise it leaves us like those proverbial blind men trying to describe an elephant based on what part they can touch.

Possessing a shared definition of the word "species", even a tentatively accepted working definition, would seem like it should be a logical foundation for any discussions of what are or are not species? Its absence seems rather perverse.

If that question about defining the word 'species' can't be answered the rest of the discussion about what is or is not a species seems likely to largely be mental masturbation. It certainly can be a lot of fun but I am not sure how productive it really is for me.

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

×