t. huarazensis == t. santaensis ?

[DiscoStu]

so i read the Sacred Succulent list and on they said that t. huarazensis is probably synonymous with t. santaensis,

this doesn't seem right?

Edited August 1, 2015 by DiscoStu

[M S Smith]

DiscoStu, Backeberg, who described T. santaensis along with Rauh, says that it has 2 to 3 radial spines that are brownish and 2-3 cm long. The flower hair is described as black. T. pallarensis is probably a candidate for a synonymous species with T. santaensis. But honestly I'm not sure Backeberg did anything but describe one of the many forms of Trichocereus in the Rio Santa valley.

Here's some good cactus p0rn. http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36654&p=440334

These plants are at Chavin de Huantar and maybe fit the bill better for being along the lines of T. santaensis.

Here's another thread worth looking at that I just found and pretty much addresses the same question. http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=34688&p=407779

~Michael~

[Evil Genius]

Don´t think they are synonymous. Have a look at the pic that Backeberg considered to be Trichocereus Santaensis.

But now that you mention it, what do you think about Yowie = Trichocereus Huarazensis

Check out this pic of Yowie posted in our Trichocereus Group today. Not my pic.

And this Huarazensis on Misplants Website.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Evil Genius

[nitrogen]

The one we call "huarazensis" here in the USA is not Yowie nor Santaensis - of the cacti pictured above it is only the one on the Misplants site that is indeed T. huarazensis.

So, the naming isn't very precise - but the strain that people are talking about when they talk in glowing terms about T. huarazensis - the strain that created the reputation for T. huarazensis - that is the one with tiny spines as in the pic above.

The strain arrived via Karl Knize in Peru - my friend Malo at the nook imported it along with many other pachanoid type plants - he grew it out and sent lots of cuttings around the community, and so the reputation of the strain developed.

My own huarazensis was given to me directly by Malo - he lopped off a large limb and gave it to me when I visited him in NorCal. Zelly's huarazensis I believe was via Mitosis, who also got it from Malo...

Now, the reality is that T. huarazensis appears to simply be a variety of T. pachanoi - and the name could perhaps be used to refer to a bunch of pachanois from that region. That is to say, people may be calling other strains of pachanoi "huarazensis" as well, having no idea that the name is already being used to identify a particular strain - this may be what Sacred Succulents is doing.

So, in summary, "huarazensis" is just a variety/strain name of T. pachanoi - T. pachanoi v. "Huarazensis"

Edited August 2, 2015 by nitrogen

[slice]

Both genotypes are present i that department ( state), the spiny one is more typical of Mosna River and surroundings of Chavin town (rural). The thick one called "Huarazensis" is all around urban Huaraz, in private gardens or public areas. River Santa, is up north and not far away so hybridization or propagation towards the South is not hard to imagine. I don't think Yowie is a "Huarazensis either.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Ogun

[Evil Genius]

Hey Guys, Trichocereus Huarazensis is not even a variety. It´s just a commercial name that´s been used for a certain type of Pachanoi and that goes back to Knize. It´s one of those gimmicky marketing names that only exist because Knize thought it would sound better instead of simply "Trichocereus Pachanoi from Huaraz". I pretty much own all cactus literature that´s been published and that name is just not there, apart from Knize´s seedlists. It goes in line with the Tom Juuls Giant and all the names that Knize pulled out of his hat.

And of course it is not the same clone as Yowie, but take a look at the two pics I posted and please explain me how they are different. Apart from a slightly different spination on Yowie, they are almost identical. I´ve seen quite a bunch of cacti in my life and looking at the differences you can see there, they could as well be from the same seed lot. Check out the distance between the areoles, the shape of the areoles and compare how the new growth looks like. Those differences wouldnt even be called a variety today. I am all for keeping track of old names just for the sake of nostalgia, but taxonomically, both would simply be called "Trichocereus Pachanoi". And for very good reasons.

And about Trichocereus Santaensis. I posted a pic of the plants that Backeberg and Rauh called Trichocereus Santaensis and if they werent totally high and lost track of their pics, it was absolutely unlike Trichocereus Huarazensis. In fact, it looks a lot more like some type of Trichocereus Knuthianus, which is why Ritter (the guy who discovered Tr. Knuthianus) said that he thinks both (Santaensis and Knuthianus) to be synonymous and that Rauh & Backeberg might have lost track of all the namey they tried to describe Just sayin.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Evil Genius

[M S Smith]

I agree about the name etc., but I Ritter said T. knuthianus was a variety of T. cuzcoensis, not T. santaensis. See post #4 here...

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21959&p=227961

Backeberg's photo above looks like T. taramaensis more than anything else to me, which appears to fall into the T. cuzcoensis forms.

~Michael~

[Evil Genius]

Michael, I have more material that was written by Ritter than his four books and he definitely wrote that. And I definitely agree that it could be similar to Trichocereus Tarmaensis. And that´s exactly why Ritter also considered that one to be synonymous with Knuthianus too. And if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense because Ritter tried to defend his name "Knuthianus" against other potential candidates that would make his name invalid, which is why he added his opinion about some of the plants that were originally described by Ritter but later changed to different species names described by Backeberg in his six volume book series CACTACEAE in order to prevent the name Trichocereus Sanataensis to replace Knuthianus. In the end, both lost their names and I think that was exactly the right thing to do. The plants surrounding Trichocereus Knuthianus, Trichocereus Tarmaensis and Trichocereus Santaensis may or may not be related and I am not the one to sort that mess out. But as I have the luck to grow them both (Knuthianus & Tarmaensis), I hope to find out more about that soon. All I can say is that I totally agree that this Santaensis looks like it could be related (and maybe even synonymous) with Knuthianus or Tarmaensis but I don´t really like guessing around and I only brought it up because I think it looks absolutely unlike Trichocereus Huarazensis.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Evil Genius

[slice]

EG, for me the differences are color and girth, yes they are variables, but that's the feel for me.

[slice]

This pic is from a plant beside the office inside the Chavin complex.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Ogun

[Evil Genius]

Yes, very nice living fence and thanks for the video. Do you suggest that this is the plant that Rauh meant with Trichocereus Santaensis? Rauhs plants grew at Puente Bedoya. If you happen to be close to it, I´d be interested to see if they are still there.

There is great variability in Chavin and there are so many different types growing alongside each other. Have a look at just a few of all the types that are growing there. http://trichocereus.net/?s=+Chavin

[slice]

that area is so rich that it is very hard to find pure genes. I find those spines similar.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Ogun

[Philocacti]

Ogun - thanks for sharing these videos.