Some cactus at botanical gardens

[trucha]

From botanical gardens or assorted collections

Photos below are by K. Trout except for wherever it is noted otherwise.

All copyrights remain with the photographers.

A Peruvian "Cereus" at Berkeley that is clearly a Trichocereus.

Field collected in Peru in 1968.

This one stays surprisingly short for its appearance.

I've ben watching it grow since 1997 and have never seen it past waist tall.

Maybe this is the normal habit or maybe its the corner placement in the garden inviting pruning and thievery??

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...8_0235_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...8_0235_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...8_0235_kt_3.jpg

bridgesii

Collected in Bolivia in 1953.

Berkeley

Images still to come

bridgesii

(FK)

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...gesii_FK_kt.jpg

bridgesii KK919

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._KK919_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._KK919_kt_2.jpg

bridgesii at Bob Ressler's website

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...t_bridgesii.jpg

cuzcoensis

Berkeley

Collected near Cuzco

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oensis_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oensis_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oensis_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oensis_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oensis_kt_5.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oensis_kt_6.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oensis_kt_7.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_fl_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_fl_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_fr_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_fr_kt_2.jpg

cuzcoensis at Bob Ressler's photo site

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus..._cuzcoensis.jpg

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...uzcoensisfl.jpg

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...uzcoensisfr.jpg

cuzcoensoid

This large patch is growing in Central CA.

I was there with a friend who has visited Cuzco several times.

He is a long time Trichocereus grower who has closely examined the cactus around Cuzco firsthand.

His opinion is that the material shown is identical to the primary Trich that is growing in abundance around Cuzco.

I too have no trouble viewing this as cuzcoensis.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ensoid_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ensoid_kt_2.jpg

escayachensis

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...hensis_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...hensis_kt_2.jpg

Echinopsis forbesii (Lab.) A.Dietr.

This was obtained as a seedling back in the 1930s. Its now around 9 feet tall.

Huntington

Backeberg thought this a form of validus.

Borg noted occurrences in Paraguay which is where this plant's line was originally sourced.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ii_HBG_kt_1.jpg

huanucoensis

Collected from the wilds of Peru by Harry S. Johnson Sr.

Several forms exist; all were apparently grown from Johnson's collected seeds.

huanucoensis

Two forms at Berkeley are labeled Peru 56.1153

Front garden:

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...eley_A_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...eley_A_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...eley_A_kt_5.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_f_kt_00.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_f_kt_03.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_f_kt_04.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_f_kt_05.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_f_kt_07.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_f_kt_08.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...is_f_kt_011.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...is_f_kt_022.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...is_f_kt_023.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...is_f_kt_026.jpg

Despite its flowering days coinciding with the flowering of the plants in the back garden rather than the pachanoi in the area.

I am puzzled why the above should not be labeled a pachanoi.

It would be interesting to study the wild population that Johnson harvested his seed from.

The above specimen is pachanoi's girth, the below are at least an inch or more fatter.

Back garden:

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._JonHanna_1.jpg

Photo above was by Jon R. Hanna

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...eley_B_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...eley_B_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...eley_B_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...eley_B_kt_5.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._1153_kt_01.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._1153_kt_02.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._1153_kt_03.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._1153_kt_06.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...53_kt_fl_01.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...53_kt_fl_02.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...53_kt_fl_04.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...53_kt_fl_05.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...53_kt_fl_09.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...3_5_G_fruit.jpg

Last photo was by my friend Geoffrey

huanucoensis

H18562 was also grown from Johnson's seeds.

Huntington

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...18562_kt_02.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...18562_kt_03.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...18562_kt_01.jpg

Seedling obtained in the Huntington's annual plant sale

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...62_sd_kt_01.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...62_sd_kt_02.jpg

huanucoensis

Growing in Southern California

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...nsis_SCal_K.jpg

Photo above by my friend Kamm

Obtained from the above; now growing north of the Bay. This column is over 6 inches in diameter

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...s_SCal_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...s_SCal_kt_2.jpg

macrogonus

Cereus macrogonus Salm-Dyck was described by Salm-Dyck using a plant in the Berlin Botanical Gardens.

That plant had no origin information but was assumed to be from South America.

Cereus macrogonus Otto was designated as the type for the genus Trichocereus yet Otto never published a description.

Currently plagued by some confusion in horticulture.

macrogonus

Huntington (no collection data; acquisition records are missing but it was part of their original collection)

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ogonus_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ogonus_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ogonus_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ogonus_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ogonus_kt_5.jpg

macrogonus

Clone RS0004

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...RS0004_kt_1.jpg

macrogonus at Bob Ressler's photo page

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus..._macrogonus.jpg

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...acrogonusfl.jpg

pachanoi

(probably Backeberg's)

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...chanoi_kt_2.jpg

pachanoi showing flowers and buds and fruits.

Compare the grey and brown hairs with the black hairs on the fruit in E. Anderson's Echinopsis pachanoi photo.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...flower_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...flower_kt_5.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...flower_kt_6.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...22june02_kt.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._fruit_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...er_Zariat_3.jpg

this last one above is by my friend Zariat and was taken in Australia.

Note the interesting color of the tube, the black hairs and the nearly denuded ovary

pachanoi KK339

Collected in Ecuador at the type locality of Britton & Rose by Karel Knize; obtained as a cutting directly from Knize

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oi_KK339_kt.jpg

pachanoi from Ecuador at Bob Ressler's photo page

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus.../t_pachanoi.jpg

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus..._pachanoifl.jpg

pachanoi

Collected in Bolivia by Myron Kimnach

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._Bolivia_kt.jpg

Some odd pachanoi offerings

pachanoi OST 90641

Collected in Peru in the Quebrada Santa Cruz, Ancash Dept., at 3300 m (almost 10,000 feet) by Carlos Ostolaza.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...Ostolaza_kt.jpg

People with access to the book "San Pedro" should compare this with the images there.

This is the same plant as one that is pictured there. (The photograph above was taken August 2005)

The above is now older older and maturing in plenty of sun outdoors rather than still being in a greenhouse.

It is intermediates like this that wipe out any clean line between pachanoi and peruvianus.

The following are the *same plants* shown while still growing in a greenhouse:

June 2002:

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._1june02_kt.jpg

June 2004:

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...June04_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...June04_kt_2.jpg

purported spiny wild type pachanoi from North Peru.

Both of the following were grown from JLHudson seeds who obtained their seeds from Karel Knize (of course)

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._NPeru_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._NPeru_kt_2.jpg

People with access to the book "San Pedro" will probably be amused at how these are maturing in lots of sun.

These tend to stay much shorter and denser spined if kept in a greenhouse.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._11feb01_kt.jpg

The last image above is a picture of a seedling several years of age growing in a greenhouse.

The "spiny wild" "pachanoi" N. Peru was grown from JLHudson seeds that they had obtained from Knize as KK1688.

I am presently unclear how the phrase "spiny wild type pachanoi" came to be used.

Based on my experiences with Knize, my best guess is some handwritten comment to JLHudson. (I'll ask next time I see them)

What I have noticed re KK1688:

In 1982, Knize was using KK1688 for a "sp. San Marcos"

By the late 1990s, KK1688 sourced from Knize was being offered, through LER, as peruvianus forma North Peru.

(KK1688 is not listed in the 1994 Knize catalog)

(This is also the time period when pachanoi was the correct name for peruvianus according to the IOS, the Kew and CITES)

In 2004, Knize listed the number KK1688 for a peruvianus from Ancash, San Marcos, Peru 2200m.

The above are probably all the same but 'probably' is all we can say for sure.

Depending on which version of his photos one decides is right, Knize's photo is not a bad match for that these look like in good sun.

pachanoid (fat)

We presently suspect this to be a hybrid between pachanoi and terscheckii.

This is based on:

1. the presence of those two species.

2. the appearance of areoles/spination.

3. the tendency to branch both at the base and at head height.

Columns shown are often 8-10 inches in diameter.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...hanoid_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...hanoid_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...hanoid_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...hanoid_kt_4.jpg

The next two are of the lower part of a branch to illustrate the head height point of attachment.

Note how this apparently nearly tore loose and then healed (cold? wet? a feature of the hybrid?)

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...hanoid_kt_5.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...hanoid_kt_6.jpg

pachanoiXperuvianus (GF)

All of these are F1 hybrids produced by cross pollination between a peruvianus GF and a typical Backeberg looking pachanoi.

All were seed grown by the person doing the hand pollination.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...us_GF_kt_01.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...s_GF_kt_02a.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...s_GF_kt_02b.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...s_GF_kt_03a.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...s_GF_kt_03b.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...us_GF_kt_04.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...us_GF_kt_05.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...us_GF_kt_06.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...s_GF_kt_07a.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...s_GF_kt_07b.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...s_GF_kt_08a.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...s_GF_kt_08b.jpg

pallarensis

Grown in CA from Ritter seeds sourced via Winter in Germany; note the two forms.

Berkeley

Dismissed by Hunt due to Ritter's inadequate description.

Regarded by many (including Ritter) as a possible peruvianus form/variety/subspecies.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...arensis_g_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...rensis_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...rensis_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...rensis_kt_3.jpg

peruvianus

two forms at Berkeley

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...twoforms_kt.jpg

more photos of these two are below

Peru 48.1540

This was started by them from seed in 1948 but the seed lacked collection data

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...8_1540_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...8_1540_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...8_1540_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...540_fl_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...540_fl_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...540_fl_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...540_fr_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...8_1540_kt_9.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...540_Tania_4.jpg

Last photo was by my friend Tania

Hutchison 543 (Peru 52.0762)

This was collected around 70 miles from Lima in 1952 by Paul Hutchison

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...2_0762_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...2_0762_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...2_0762_kt_5.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...543_fl_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...543_fl_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...2_0762_kt_6.jpg

Last photo above is of a young plant tip obtained from them as a seedling in their plant store year before last

peruvianus Ancash

Grown from JLHudson seeds of Knize's forma Ancash

This is around 8 feet tall in a 5 gallon black plastic pot.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...Ancash_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...Ancash_kt_2.jpg

The next is the same material as seedlings, first one is soon after arrival in the mail (Photo is by Logan Boskey):

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...h_Boskey_01.jpg

The next year after some sun:

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ncash_kt_02.jpg

peruvianus Elzner/GF

Collected from the wilds of Peru many years ago (1950s?)

The base of the mother plant was around 10 inches.

Columns are commonly 6-8 inches.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...vianus_GF_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...nus_GF_kt_6.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...nus_GF_kt_5.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...nus_GF_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...nus_GF_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...nus_GF_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...nus_GF_kt_7.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...nus_GF_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...nus_GF_kt_9.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._GF_fl_0_kt.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._GF_fl_1_kt.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._GF_fl_2_kt.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._GF_fl_3_kt.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._GF_fl_4_kt.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._GF_fl_5_kt.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._GF_fl_7_kt.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._GF_fl_8_kt.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...F_fl_x_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...F_fl_x_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...F_fl_x_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...us_GF_fr_kt.jpg

And a photo by GF

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...lowering_GF.jpg

peruvianus Peru H14192

Huntington- collection data has been lost but is thought to be a collection from the 1950s by Harry S. Johnson Sr.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...H14192_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...H14192_kt_2.jpg

peruvianus KK242

This collection number is what is known as locality number. It refers to material collected from a given altitude range at a given area rather than being from a single plant or colony.

This first version was grown from a cutting obtained some years ago from Karel Knize.

Photo was by someone who gave me permission to use it but did not want their name attached to it.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._KK242_Anon.jpg

peruvianus KK242

seed grown in the US from Knize-sourced seeds

http://trout.yage.net/sc/KK242_us/kk242USindex.htm

Next photo is Hudson grown KK242. Knize was the seed source of course.

Photo is by Logan Boskey

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...2_Boskey_03.jpg

peruvianus KK242 Central Peru

Live material obtained from Karel Knize

http://trout.yage.net/sc/KKTrichs/KK242_AO...O1/AO1index.htm

peruvianus KK242 forma Matucana

Live material obtained from Karel Knize

http://trout.yage.net/sc/KKTrichs/KK242_K3...39/K39index.htm

peruvianus KK242 Rio Lurin

"Lurim" on the website is a misspelling that hasn't been corrected yet.

Live material obtained from Karel Knize

http://trout.yage.net/sc/KKTrichs/KK242_J3...34/J33index.htm

peruvianus KK242 forma Langa

Live material obtained from Karel Knize

http://trout.yage.net/sc/KKTrichs/KK242_L4...42/L42index.htm

peruvianus KK242 Rio Chillon

Live material obtained from Karel Knize

http://trout.yage.net/sc/KKTrichs/KK242_E1...19/E19index.htm

The next two cuttings appear to be the same but arrived unlabeled

http://trout.yage.net/sc/KKTrichs/KK242_E2...20/E20index.htm

http://trout.yage.net/sc/KKTrichs/KK242_E2...21/E21index.htm

Note how much suggestion there is of this being a hybrid.

peruvianus from Bob Ressler's photo page

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus..._peruvianus.jpg

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...us_matucana.jpg

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...ianus_rimac.jpg

purported short spined peruvianus (CCC: California Cactus Center)

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ed_CCC_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ed_CCC_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ed_CCC_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ed_CCC_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...undles_kt_3.jpg

The vascular bundle of the CCC short spined peruvianus compared to that of an identical diameter pachanoi.

A slice was taken from each one, the surrounding portions trimmed away and the remaining flesh then allowed to rot.

Notice what a pachanoi bundle looks like when still together.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...chanoi_kt_1.jpg

purported short spined peruvianus Huancabamba

Collected at Huancabamba, Peru by a Dutch citizen who is married to a Peruvian woman.

The collector of the seeds sold Mesa Garden their stock.

This multibranching plant was grown from Mesa Garden seed by Oasis.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...abamba_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...abamba_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...abamba_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...abamba_kt_4.jpg

Next photo is of seedlings from Mesa Garden seed. I will upload some pictures of them when older.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...abamba_kt_5.jpg

Comments

1) This looks more or less like a typical Peruvian pachanoi intermediate. And not at all far from a typical Peruvian pachanoi.

2) There seems nothing that would make this a peruvianus unless perhaps its a hybrid involving it at some point.

peruvianoid?

(FK)

No label. These pictures are of different parts of one large plant growing outdoors in partial sun/shade.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oid_FK_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oid_FK_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oid_FK_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oid_FK_kt_4.jpg

Another.

No label.

Purchased at Poot's cactus. These pictures are all of one single plant. Note how much more spiny the new basal growth is.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oid_GB_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oid_GB_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oid_GB_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...oid_GB_kt_4.jpg

Two more at Bob Ressler's website

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus/t_sp1.jpg

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus/t_sp2.jpg

puquiensis

(now considered to be a ssp of peruvianus)

Collected near Puquio, Peru

Berkeley

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...iensis_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...iensis_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...iensis_kt_6.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...iensis_kt_9.jpg

puquiensis

Cutting from Bob Ressler

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...iensis_kt_2.jpg

riomizquiensis

Grown from Ritter seed by Horst Kunzler

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...quiensis_kt.jpg

santaensis OST 92701

Collected by Carlos Ostolaza in the Santa Valley, Peru around 3000 m

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...tolaza_kt_1.jpg

scopulicola

growing in Oz (NSW)

Note the odd spiny variant

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...licola_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...licola_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...licola_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...licola_kt_5.jpg

sp Baker 5452

Collected in Bolivia as a pachanoi, this is clearly a bridgesii

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...er5452_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...er5452_kt_3.jpg

sp. Hutchison 1597

Collected at Huancabamba in 1957 by Paul Hutchison

(Berkeley Peru 57.0884)

Labeled pachanoi until someone noticed its flowers around a couple of years ago

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...7_0884_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...7_0884_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...7_0884_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...7_0884_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...7_0884_kt_5.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...7_0884_kt_6.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...7_0884_kt_7.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._0884_kt_01.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._0884_kt_02.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._0884_kt_03.jpg

sp. SS02

A bridgesioid that lacks origin data

Note the variability in spination. This can be on a single column or not. These are two different columns from the same clone.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...p_SS02_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...p_SS02_kt_2.jpg

sp. SS03

A peruvianoid (a suspected hybrid) that lacks origin data

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery..._sp_SS03_kt.jpg

tacaquirensis

Berkeley

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...rensis_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...rensis_kt_2.jpg

tacaquirensis at Bob Ressler's website

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...caquirensis.jpg

taquimbalensis

Collected in Bolivia by Roberto Kieseling

Huntington 68146

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...G68146_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...G68146_kt_2.jpg

taquimbalensis

Mesa Garden

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_MG_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...sis_MG_kt_2.jpg

taquimbalensis at Bob Ressler's website

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...uimbalensis.jpg

tarmaensis

Collected near Tarma, Peru

Berkeley

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...aensis_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...aensis_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...aensis_kt_3.jpg

terscheckii

Berkeley

The apparent lack of spination only occurs on the top portions of adults

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...heckii_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...heckii_kt_8.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...heckii_kt_9.jpg

terscheckii

Paul's Desert

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...kii_PD_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...kii_PD_kt_2.jpg

terscheckii at Bob Ressler's website

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...i_varigated.jpg

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...rscheckiifl.jpg

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...scheckiifls.jpg

uyupampensis

Berkeley

Sourced as cutting from Jardin de Monaco who obtained theirs from Backeberg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...pensis_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...pensis_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...pensis_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...pensis_kt_4.jpg

uyupampensis at Bob Ressler's website

http://www.columnar-cacti.org/trichocereus...yupampensis.jpg

Notice how the appearance of this seedling suggests it that is a hybrid with something else in the garden.

validus

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...alidus_kt_1.jpg

werdermannianus

Two forms at Berkeley

Bolivia 50.1998

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...nianus_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...0_1998_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...0_1998_kt_3.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...0_1998_kt_4.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...0_1998_kt_5.jpg

Bolivia 71.0083

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...1_0083_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...1_0083_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...1_0083_kt_3.jpg

More images and details will keep coming as fast as time permits.

[ 18. September 2005, 04:55: Message edited by: trout ]

[Benzito]

Gee, that Cactus garden at Berkeley looks sorely neglected.

Or is that just a sign of age? All those scars, and damaged pieces?

Beautiful photos. Thanks Trout!

[strangebrew]

Trout are you aware of why the segmented macrogonus at Huntington grows the way it does?

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ogonus_kt_5.jpg

I have a clone that seems to do it because of a tendency for it's areoles to sometimes grow out fused.

[trucha]

The seeming lack of care is common to botanical gardens. Maybe they want a natural appearance?

The nice thing about Berkeley is that they have a bunch of ADULT plants that are between 30some to 60some years old. Some plants at the Huntington and other older botanical gardens are older still.

The hacked off columns are the results of thieves.

Cactus collectors and trippers have both been responsible for the extensive mutilations.

No idea on the jointed branching.

Interesting observation about the way that one areole almost seems to show some sort of fasciation tendency or something. That could explain the jointed habit (the same thing both in terms of the feature you noted and the growth habit) but I'm left puzzled as to why or what is transpiring.

[ 06. September 2005, 19:17: Message edited by: trout ]

[trucha]

Two more pertinent photos that are not mine.

MSS brought these to my attention (thanks Michael!)

I will probably delete these soon as I lack permission to post them

purported short spined peruvianus

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...actusCenter.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...actusCorral.jpg

[Evil Genius]

Are there any known short spined or spineless Trichocereus cuzcoensis variants?The 1948 Peruvianus at Berkley is oustanding! The Hutchison 543 looks interesting too! Unfortunately only one of the 543 Pics works for me. Do you think that the 543 is bridgesoid ? EG

[ 06. September 2005, 18:41: Message edited by: Evil Genius ]

[trucha]

The normal spined peruvianus shown are all around 6 inches in diameter (give or take an inch)

bridgesii is about half that fat or less.

I have not seen any short spined or spineless cuzcoensis but that means nothing on its own.

Just to play the devil's advocate:

I know of no short spined peruvianus collections that do not key into pachanoi or could not reasonably be considered to by a hybrid with it.

If anyone disagrees with that statement please let me know what features are possessed that violate anything in the description of pachanoi.

I am not wanting to argue with anyone but would like a bit more clarification about what is getting called what and why.

[ 07. September 2005, 03:36: Message edited by: trout ]

[trucha]

I should add on the photos that I kept their names as they are known not necessarily as they should be labeled.

Clearly some like the peruvianus Huancabamba would probably be better if called pachanoi and others like the short spined peruvianus forms would at least be more realistic if termed pachanoids.

The Cereus sp. from Peru is clearly a Trichocereus of some sort; interestingly NOT growing to any decent height seemingly (of course theives could prevent this observation due to its placement in the garden and evidence of repated prunings)

More images of these and still more species will come. After which point I will get back to commenting on other questions raised elsewhere here. My apologies that I lack adequate time for providing more input.

I think the one thing that should strike most viewers of these images (especially if they can compare these to other images of the same plants that are in San Pedro- only some of the photographs posted are from the pages that work) is just how much similarity runs through all of them, including how much variability can be seen within each sometimes on a single large plant.

After much deliberation I've decided to completely stop discussing potency of specific strains. (Some people probably noticed I deleted a number of eariler postings of mine)

The wise out there might want to consider doing somethng similar but I know wisdom is not one of the strong or even historically common features of our species. The information is already out there in abundance but firsthand kowledge is the only source that comes with true personal power.

Lack of concern for keeping the better ones with us for future generations seems curiously counterproductive. Its not new laws I would have the most concern about but rather the targeting of the sources of nonpesticided cacti of known superior forms.

[ 07. September 2005, 03:07: Message edited by: trout ]

[Evil Genius]

I think there might be lots of plants on the market which have been heavily treated with pesticides.It is much more likely to me that most commercial Growers would rather use pesticides or fungicides than throwing a contaminated plant away. Apart from what they might telling the people, you can never know for sure if a plant has been treated with chemicals though. I assume that huge parts of this peeled cactus skin which is unfortunately available on the market is contaminated.But that also depends on the individual cases and the origin. I wouldn´t bother about activity, because most of the Peruvianus or Bridgesii Material seem to be very dependable and active.

[trucha]

Its even worse in reality.

Many commercial growers use fungicides and insecticides on a routine basis.

The most successful ones often use *systemic* fungicides and insecticides as a prophylactic. These can take at least a couple of years or maybe more to clear from the cactus.

On the other hand cactus production operations in the right areas (like southern Cal) aren't bothered by the same level of problems as elsewhere and many small commercial growers have commented to me on not needing to use chemicals of any sort on their cacti.

Lots of old time cactus people have already died of liver cancers, brain cancers and other fates thought to be pesticide related. That made a lot of people start to think more.

[M S Smith]

Hey kt, those two photos you mention me as passing on to you are probably ok to post publicly without concern (I have for years with no trouble). The first photo is the monstrose plant from CA Cactus Center (CCC). The Second photo was sent to me by Jim of the old Cactus Corral (CC). I got the CC photo, and clippings of monstrose and non-monstrose limbs, prior to the plant being offered by CCC. CC was looking to sell the "large cacti" collection and wanted me to buy it (I wish I had the space, or the money). I suspect CCC bought the plants from CC. I repeatedly inquired of CCC if they got the CC plants, but having asked the question about three different times over the years they never emailed me back. I don't know why, but I suspect they didn't answer because they had the CCC plants from CC and just didn't want to reveal that information. I do believe the plant became the "short spined" T. peruvianus due to my own comments. Jim at CC didn't refer to the plant as "short spined" at all, but regarded it as the only form of T. peruvianus he was aware of.

I have made a number of comments in my book and elsewhere about some of the differences I think exist between the "short spined T. peruvianus" and T. pachanoi. Spine color, length, areole size and the projection below it (not present on the SS plant), rib growth (rounded as apposed to the more angular ribs of T. pachanoi), as well as skin color and glaucescence. The persistent and heavily defined V-notch on the SS plant is also a main difference. If you examine the new tip growth on the SS plant you can see that the V-notch above the areole is the product of tuburcles-like growth that as the plant matures flatten out, stays V-shaped, or even becomes fully horizontal and dis-attached from the areole. T. pachanoi is quite different in that it lacks such tubercle folds above the areole on new tip growth. Occassionally there appear faint V-notchs, but nothing of any significance of reliability from plant to plant.

Maybe you have been able to look at the flowers of the two side by side. I wonder if they would be similar enough to be considered the same plant (I suspect so, especially among those who want to consider even the standard T. peruvianus and T. pachanoi as being synonymous, but I am not won't to discount the differences in name which actually do serve a pupose to the collector, though maybe not to the botanist).

I have the plants side by side all the time, and have taken many photos of the plants, and looking over memory and the photos I can't see them as being close enough in feature to be synonymous for me to discount the use of different names. I have numerous T. pachanoi hybrids of which I can see quite clearly the influence of T. pachanoi, but I am hard pressed to see T. pachanoi in the SS T. peruvianus. I see much more of the central T. peruvianus of Icaros fame in the SS plant than I do T. pachanoi. The Icaros T. peruvianus and the SS plant are particularly similar in the morphology of the columns and ribs. Certainly there are many differences, but if you were to remove all the spines from the standard Backeberg T. pachanoi, from the Icaros plant, and from the SS plant, and then have to consider relationships (without flowers), then I would place the SS closer to the Icaros than I would to the Backeberg.

I think that the two (T. pachanoi and the short spined T. peruvianus) have been confused in their name simply due to their somewhat similar features, particularly the size of the spines. I am completely confused by the fact that the literature has T. pachanoi as having black flower hair, while all photos of the common Backeberg T. pachanoi show whitish hair. If my memory serves me well I think the short spine T. peruvianus has the dark hair. I might have to go look at a few photos I've downloaded to confirm this. In that way at least the SS T. peruvianus is somewhat like the Juul's Giant which does have black hair on the flowers.

Trout, I'm glad you have stopped discussing "potency." If I must I usually use the terms "alkaloid concentrations." Potency seems to quite directly indicate the usage of the plants for psychoactive effect. My term is much more benign.

~Michael~

[trucha]

Actually what I am unclear on is why the short spined peruvianus plants are demonstrably peruvianus rather than pachanoi with perhaps peruvianus involvement (ie a putative hybrid line derived from pachanoi).

So far ALL discussions of this I have encountered are not justifications for these being peruvianus but rather are a list of features that were created in an attempt to separate the "shortspined peruvianus" from pachanoi.

This is not the same thing as supporting them actually being peruvianus.

To me it seems much more likely that all of the intermediaries arose from pachanoi-involved hybrid swarming. Or are simply pachanoid variants.

They most certainly might have some peruvianus in them in some cases but they are really as much if not usually more pachanoid than peruvianuoid once past the juvenile stage.

Once showing at least some seblence of their adult forms, the short spined peruvianus forms I have seen have so far not shown development of the typical areole formation nor the spination one would expect of a peruvianus. (Unlike some of the purported long spined pachanoi selections! Which brings up another issue of course.)

Even taking short spination into account one would expect larger areoles and a different looking configuration. For instance the notching on the KK242 posted by Flip also shows up on sp. SS03 and on a deliberate pachanoiXperuvianus hybrid produced by a friend of mine (photo also here)

Ritter felt that the intermediates proved there was no separation between pachanoi and peruvianus. His conclusion was that they were one species. My conclusion is a bit different but the observation of there being a literal spectrum of intergrading pachanoids and peruvianoids is the same and is an easy one for any of us to make.

Peruvianus can express itself with longer and shorter spined growth (and sparser and denser) but as the images above should (and will increasingly) illustrate generally these seem to be able to appear even on the same plants if grown under different sun and environmental conditions. Once in the right conditions ANY bonafide peruvianus I've encountered seems to put out at least some long spines and form much larger areoles than pachanoi.

Of the odd pachanoid or peruvianoid things that I've seen which looked lke intermediaries and flowering, their flowers looked intermediary too. The nice KK242 picture that was posted here by flip may be an example. Its clearly a peruvianus sort of flower but if you look closely at the stigma lobes and the width of the sepals there is some suggestion of possible pachanoi involvement.

Its NOT so clearly defined or definable between species as anyone would like to think though. Even within peruvianus or much of what is accepted as peruvianus one can find floral buds looking very like pallerensis or cuzcoensis. Cuzcoensis sort of looks in between them actually.

With exceptions of the shape of the petals, cuzcoensis looks way more like peruvianus flowers than does puquiensis (or perhaps one could argue pallarensis or huanucoensis too) which no one seems to have trouble viewing as a variety of peruvianus.

Cuzcoensis tends to have more yellowgreen on the floral bud than pachanoi or peruvianus yet pallarensis is even more so as is the Hutchison 543 peruvianus or the seedgrown pachanoi in Oz photographed by Zariat (check out the peruvianuslike sparcity of hair on the ovary and the black color of what hair is there)

Also on the subject of black hair its worth noting that the pachanoi shown in Edward F. Anderson's last book clearly has black hairs (in abundance). I'm not yet convinced that hair color is a reliable feature in this case though.

If there are insufficient truly meaningful differences between KK242 peruvianus and cuzcoensis to call them separate species (and this may well be the case not just with KK242 but all peruvianus) they would all see themselves renamed as cuzcoensis and subspecies, however I would posit this could just as easily be extended to include bridgesii leaving us calling them all Echinopsis lageniformis.

The observations you've made on the white hair on the fruit (I see this light color as grey and/or tan and/or brown) rather than black are really interesting although black hairs are clearly present in the axils of the scales and on the outside of the ovary.

I've been trying to study as many images as possible of flowers and fruit with all of this in mind.

I've also been revising the above list yet again to expand it into including flowers and fruit.

[ 15. September 2005, 05:45: Message edited by: trout ]

[Gunter]

I am working on a method for chloroplast DNA analysis for gleaning maternal lines and points of divergence. I should have it ready to go in a couple of months and then the experiment will take a couple of months. It will be interesting to study the maternal decent of these facinating plants.

[ 14. September 2005, 15:08: Message edited by: Archaea ]

[trucha]

That would be great.

It will be critical to obtain plants with a verified history and ID to create standards for the established species.

A major part of the problem I am having with the purported short spined peruvianus is (so far as I can presently tell) they all appear to be called by this name entirely due to having been sold at some point under that name. Further, the attempted untangling of them from pachanoi appears to have arisen entirely based on the assumption they really were peruvianus rather than it actually ever having been established that they were a form of peruvianus rather than some pachanoi intermediate or hybrid or less likely an altogether different species.

[Gunter]

I am still looking for ideal primers and such. There are some details to work out, and it might result in some failure before anything is learned.

I have a number of plants in my collection with collection data.

I suppose I could use Los Genteles peruvianus, the Huancabamba pachanoid. Some bridgesii from Bolivia, maybe once I have a method worked out I can do a much more expansive project, this one is to facilitate comparison, and glean divergence data, but not actually be taxonomically applied.

You inspired me though (both you and Mr. Smith) to try and develop some methods that can later be applied in field study or used on material collected in the field.

I have no intent to gain or profit from this, so I think a group effort or feedback from others would be very nice and if I do get some decent data, I intend to share it with everyone.

[trucha]

I'd suggest establishing some sort of standard using nonhorticultural stuff prior to looking at cultivars.

If this gets going, arranging samples from major botanical gardens can be simpler than you think depending on their perception of the purpose they are being examined. The curators are usually happy to assist with science.

If dried material could be worked with, the true ideal would be using samples from the herbarium vouchers supporting the original collections upon which the names were based. Again this is possible to obtain for scientific pursuit assuming that the sample still exists. Herbariums sometimes suffer horrible losses for many reasons.

Back in the late 1960s, UT Austin had some moron go into their herbarium and steal the dried peyote documenting the early collections in Texas. The stacks of collection data that went away along with the buttons was a far worse loss than the plant material.

[Gunter]

I just love the photo's in this thread.

Either I didn't notice some or Trout has added some since I last looked.

[ 01. October 2005, 02:40: Message edited by: Archaea ]

[Benzito]

Yeah Archaea,

Signor Trout keeps editing his first post. And I keep making a mess of my pants evertime he does.

This is some awesome cactus porn! :D

[whiterasta]

I note the spination on T validus is VERY similar to the tersheckii I have. The multiple recurved spines are nearly identical. I would place money that T. validus is a tersheckoid dominant peruvianus/panchanoi hybrid by obsevation only.

Are the species found in proximity?

The alkaloidal profile of both species seem quite similar also. Trichocereus seem to be so cross fertile that defining typical specimens of individual species relatively moot for many species as many seem to appear as multi-phenotypical or regionaly hybridized.

Just a thought on it all.

WR

[zee_werp]

Great post...just simply amazing. A Trichocereus lovers dream I say!!! Makes my own cactus collection seem so boring in comparison. Oh well, one day....

Seriously though mate thank you so much for posting all these pics, its going to take me a few hours to go through this post properly, I have a feeling it is going to become an indespensible resource for me!!!

[trucha]

Apologies for a complete lack of posts or replies in recent weeks. I've been assembling some more images for upload but have had no time lately. I probably won't for at least several days.

validus and terscheckii are likely to be in a complex including werdermannianus, escayacensis, taquimbalensis, tacaquirensis and others. You're right this is likely to be similar to the, in general, more northerly hybrid morass.

[zee_werp]

Trout, I was just looking through the photo gallery archives, and found the ID chart that you posted at some stage...not sure when or in what thread, but this is the link:

http://shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/di...p&cat=3&pos=370

Anyway it kind of confused me, as the ID's didn't seem like what I'd expect...theres even one photo thats used twice (1688 and 1911) that are described as two seperate species!! And theres one that looks like a bridgesii and it says its a peruvianus...theres ones that look like pachs but are described as cuzcoensis and peruvianus...etc. Sorry I don't know the original context that this thing was posted in perhaps you were pointing out these features, I don't know.

Where is that ID chart from? Got a link to the original thread it was in?

[Gunter]

 

 

Where is that ID chart from? Got a link to the original thread it was in?

It is from a Karel Knize website. It is not an ID chart and holds little taxonomic value.

[strangebrew]

That's not an ID chart, :D

it's the infamous Karel Knize's supposed seed catalogue chart.

Ignore it, just admire the purdy pictures.

[M S Smith]

http://cactusknize.com is fun to look over all the same. He does give locations of where he collected plants, but if you don't trust his ID, etc., etc., etc., then it can be a little difficult. Generally if I read other authors and they list the location of a plant and provide a photograph I generally place some value on it as being a plant representational of the rest of the plants under that species title in a given range, but with Knize I look at his photos and collection locations and see nothing but a mess. Of course not all of this may be due to him, as many plants from different areas could have been introduced and then collected by him and given numbers, but here's what I don't like.

Let's say a plant from northern Peru has an indigenous population which hasn't had much mixing with others of the taxa and appears to have been evolutionarily isolated for some time, enough to become distinct from others in the surrounding territories. Now someone comes along and takes one of these plants and carries it over to a new area and for 40 years it grows and interbreeds with this other population and produced seed plants. Along comes Knize, he recognizes the original plant as have come from a different area, marks it as the same species, but provides it with a different collection number and location, leading others to assume that it is a wider spread plant than originally held, even though it had only been brought over 40 years ago. (I won’t blame him though for others’ misunderstandings.)

And then Knize goes on the hunt for other plants, and he starts seeing a morass of intermixed hybrid plants, but this doesn’t stop him so that he can take some assessment of what might be the predominate species in the area and which might therefore be the indigenous one for that range of territory, but rather starts collecting hybrids, throwing on collection numbers, and calls all of them the same species, but different collection number even though it may be that there is no general representation of each collection number in the population or territory, rather only one, one that is a hybrid caused by mans bringing of plants together.

I understand the diversity of these plants, and I think it is greatly due to human intervention, but the failure to attempt to address what is an indigenous population as opposed to a man made artificial population is like me having a collection of every “pure” Brugmansia species and making no attempt to either keep proper understanding of their hybrid status and parentage, or giving up all together and calling most of it a mess that is no even really deserving of being called species anymore.

Honestly, in some cases I think the later should be done, particularly in the case of plants that come from centers of human populations. These plants could have been brought in and mixed for hundreds, possibly thousands of years in given locations, and in my opinion saying the products of these mixed plants, with mixed features, are all a particular species of Trichocereus is quite incorrect. From what I have gathered the areas around central Peru east of Lima are the main grounds for this intermixed batch of plants that could, and should, be considered nothing by “grex” as Trout has termed it.

But I am interested not in the grex as much as I would truly like to see some examination of what might be considered “true” species. I know this could be difficult, but I would like to see which plants maintain a range of their own, primarily free of other species, and which maintain a very consistent growth habit across the board, something most cacti in almost any other place besides Peru seem to do. Well at least they do that enough to allow us to easily identify them as a certain species.

As it stand now, I pretty much am not a collector of “species” so much as a collector of a mixed bag of seed from a Brugmansia farm. That is fine with me from a collectors point of view, as I grow them for aesthetics and little else, but I would still love to see the issue of what are species and what are not straightened out by someone sometime before it become to late and they all disappear into hybrid heaven.

As it stands now I will consider myself a little more rigorous regarding these plants than Knize is. For him it appears the more variations that he can give title to means the more money he makes from selling such variation. This doesn't bode well for good scientific exploration of these plants and gives itself to corruption.

Now I know Trout is waiting for me to come back and explain why I think the "short spined T. peruvianus" is closer in relation to the central Peru "Icaros" sort of T. peruvianus, and not just not a T. pachanoi. I'll be back in a bit.

~Michael~