Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
mutant

How to recognize Trichocereus Tacaquirensis / Taquimbalensis

Question

In seeing how my "taqaquirensis" seedlings looklike taquimbalensis, and noting that some people's werdermanianus also look taquimbalensis, I am pretty thrilled to compare all of them. Well we got some mature ones to show, again, compare with the last photo if ya like to judge the growth speed.

1. taquimbalensis plain, came with a kk number from sab. Mostly straight spines

P1110081.jpg

2. taquimbalensis var wilka, seed grown, love this clone because it's still a 7-ribber and its probably my darkest-green coloured tricho. It's definately NOT as fast as "Efi" , but EFI spent 1 year on a pereskiopsis...

P1110082.jpg

3. taquimbalensis var wilka forma EFI . This clone has earned its name in my opinion for a number of reasons. It got named after my ex, which was a pretty curvy girl, and so is this clone. Note that this EFI specimen was taken from the mother plant, was rooted and eventually got to be bigger than the seed grown wilka (2) that is of the same age like the EFI motherplant. Efi and the awesome 7-rib wilka (2) are coming from the same seed batch. I got another two of them outside , in the ground, but I should probably take them out to grow in a proper containter. Efi is pretty willing to increase her rib number and has the most awesome ribs - also this my only female trichocereus ! , oh, there's Eileen too! :P

P1110083.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 1

"There is nothing wrong with a little potential confusion"

only there is a lot, man

and some times you experts are not helping when talking about a cactus which is clearly something between a pach and a peruv or what but you are calling it a third name (letting all the newbs think this is a real species) . So sometimes, after the name has been widely used, someone should say : hey you fuckers, werdermanianus = (form of) terscheckii and tacaquirensis = (form of) taquimbalensis or something... and huanu is just a peruvianus or a peruv hybrid.

anyways, yeah these "how to recognise" threads, should not feat people asking, but people telling about IDing featues and all. And yeah these threads should receive heavy moderation, especially when sticky with such bold title.

PS: do you people think this huanucoensis is a real species? if yes, then find me in that thread what are the characteristics of it.

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15749

Conclusion: likely it is a hybrid between peruvianus and bridge, but nobody really knows, but you have made a sticky on this?!!?

IMO this should be unstuck, and instead the scop, terscheckii and taquimbalensis threads which are unstuck, should be rendered sticky, as they refer to REAL species.

PS: Militant Taxonomy is much more fun than super Libra taxonomy!

Edited by mutant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi Guys, i have moved some Pics of Taquimbalensis and Tacaquirensis that did not belong in the Terscheckii/Werdemannianus Thread. Might move others too, because the Threads should be accurate.

Some more Plants in the Werdermannianus Thread are actually Tacaquirensis or Taquimbalensis btw. Werdermannianus isn´t really a valid name and some people used to throw it at every Trich they didn´t know. So please be aware. Will check Backebergs Descriptions again, but as far as I remember, it´s simply Terscheckii with Flowers at a different place. So absolutely not a valid name anyway.

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The "threads should be accurate"? By those sorts of guidelines you should be busy moving pics of nearly every species for some time to come, and this based upon what your own interpretation of others' interpretation of the species is or isn't. There is nothing wrong with a little potential confusion; let the smart sort it out in their own heads rather than be presumptuous in ones belief that one can sort it out for them. In addition, others might be responding in the thread to the pictures you moved and by moving things about you ruin the continuity of the thread. If you believe a posted picture isn't the plant in question, well then, just say so. Isn't that what we have all done for years?

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Laying out our views, correct or otherwise, is fine and dandy, confusion and all, and is the nature of things, but it is EG who in doing what he is doing is the only one leaning towards the claim of an expert. In the least he's serving as proxy-expert by determining which real expert he want to reflect. There are no experts here, and ones attempt to correct others' errors by the actions of altering a thread is a great deal different than the time honored tradition of using words to encourage correction.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

lol, i am far from being an expert and i´m simply trying to tidy the "How to recognize" a bit up because people have been using them for ID´s for a while and i think that would even increase the chaos that surrounds some species. The Two Pics i moved out of the Terscheckii Thread were obviously no Terscheckii but were belonging into the Taquimbalensis/Tacaquirensis Area so i moved em. Not sure why this would be problematic.

Michael, i totally agree with you on some points and people have to take every ID on this Forum with a grain of salt. Theré´s some more cleaning that needs to be done and i will take on one Thread at a time everytime i see one that feels totally out of place. ATM, the database and trichocereus website needs to be finished first, besides, from the regular moderation work. So far, there were very few Pics that i ever moved. If you see some more that are totally out of place, just let me know and i´ll see if it makes sense to move them somewhere else. If not, i leave em. I will NOT start Moving around loads of images btw. I´m rather talking about like 5-10 Images in the How to Threads because many people reach them through google in order to ID some of their Tricho´s and i think it may not be optimal to have them filled with plants that are obviously not the Plant in the title of the Thread. In this particular case, i additionally thought that Taquimbalensis and Tacaquirensis are very cool Plants that are very common and deserve to be in their own Thread. In the past, they´ve constantly shown up on the ID Forum. And i think they are different enough from Terscheckii.

I will not even think about starting to judge about what plant is a Pachanoi and which one is a Peruvianus because i don´t really think they are different enough to be classified as two seperate species. Of course they are different but that´s rather in the range of a Variety and not a species. But that´s another Topic. But since the Werdermannianus Name is really a very old One that´s basically a nomen nudum, i´d prefer to see Terscheckii Type Plants and Plants that were obviously sold as Werdermannianus there.

If it was sold as Werdermannianus but it actually isn´t one, i don´t care either. I usually keep wrong Labels to make sure i keep Track of the Plants and that´s why i won´t change that here. I don´t really want to check every Name and such on their validity. I know some Taquimbalensis Varieties are close to Terscheckii/Werdermannianus but if we would enclude them there too, i think it´s getting too broad. My personal Opinion and if people want them there i certainly won´t argue about that. Just trying to make the Threads as User-friendly as possible.

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Seed grown Taquimbalensis.

This photo was taken today, the seed was sown on the 3/11/12.

post-11291-0-65819200-1397693651_thumb.j post-11291-0-20773800-1397693694_thumb.j

Cheers

Jox

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Ok , so the cactus that i originally bought as werdermannianus should really be a terscheckii or taquimbalensis ?

To me , a novice, the cactus that I have looks a lot like

the taquimbalensis var wilka posted above.

Did I buy a cactus mislabeled Werdermannianus instead of taquimbalensis?

The more you learn the less you know right?

It seems like it won't be long before every columnar cactus is considered one species , again.

post-13369-0-33202000-1398898695_thumb.j

post-13369-0-40223800-1398898713_thumb.j

post-13369-0-47620700-1398898923_thumb.j

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

looks like an awesome taquimbalensis var wilka (especially curvy spines)

the taquimbalensis var wilka I got from seed came as werdermannianus seed...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Awesome thanks mutant. I got it from a commercial nursery and I assume they did the same thing , and that's why it's labeled werdermannianus still.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

found this one with a flower bud pic...., wouldnt let me add the image so heres the link

http://myoncell.mobi/stops.php?acct_num=16263165765&stop=53086&done=done

Edited by ☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

new seedgrowns

P1120952.jpg P1120953.jpg

and the variriety/forma/subsp wilkae (EFI)

P1120954.jpg P1120955.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

P1130008.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

P1130101.jpg

again, another forma wilkae specimen spination closeup

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Sorry guys but the title of this thread is kind of misleading to me, as none says the characteristics of Taquimbalensis and what differentiates it from other similar looking species. Or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well, some would argue that there is only taquimbalensis, only one very variable species. Actually, according to some modern sources all of those are varieties of tacaquirensis. That species complex is very confusing and with many different interpretations of what makes a species, but then again that can be applied to the whole Trichocereus genus. But differences here are even more subtle than with others.

Personally, I agree with Evil Genius, I call the ones with thin spidly spines tacaquirensis, the ones with thick, strong, curved spines taquimbalensis (I think the var. wilkae usually applies to those), similar ones with weaker, straight spines 'boring taquimbalensis', werdermannianus is somewhat different, almost like an intermediate between 'boring taquimbalensis' and terscheckii, and I'm waiting for my escayacensis to show their mature characteristics to know what I will call escayacensis. :lol:

But I usually keep the name and field number of the seeds I bought whatever they turn out to be out of respect to the collector.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Berengar, you put it nicely...

Philo these are posts that were split from other thread(s).

If you want I cant write some text from the description of Trout notes for the tac/taq complex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I would really appreciate it if you did :)

I have this beautiful specimen that was identified as totally different species from 2 members I highly respect their opinions on IDing. So it's driving me nuts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

mmmm i adore this thread ,

you guys all rawk and really get my brain working for these plants and because it's a perpetual energy give to them; I love it all the more !

I think all of ya are as close to experts as i can imagine to want for from my lowly vantage point,

tween y'all and a few more heroes here ... I don't think there's a bigger goldmine of cactical ops anywhere!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Can you please post a pic of your Plant philocacti?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Nice plant, very interesting form! I think this is T. chilensis, another hugely variable species. This plant looks very similar to a var. skotsbergii I had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks, EG also IDed it as T. chilensis

However, what are the characteristics that makes it chilensis and not taquimbalensis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Slightly duller, greyish-green colour, taquimbalensis is usually very shiny and vibrant green, somewhat longer and more dense spines than what is commonly found on 'boring taquimbalensis', and more of them, big fat areoles, more 'wavy' ribs, and the colour of the new spines. Only characteristic not common in chilensis is the slightly swollen base of the spines.

Your plant looks quite similar to some forms of taquimbalensis, but I'm pretty sure it has it's origins in Chile, and not Bolivia.

Edited by Berengar
  • Like 1

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

×