Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
trucha

How to recognize a huanucoensis

Question

This thing has several forms that all were started from seeds Harry Johnson Sr brought back to the US in the 1950s. It seems to be all over the planet now.

It can be insanely variable even within one form depending on where it gets grown.

It gets easily as fat (and often fatter) as any peruvianus. It can have no spines or long spines but usually not many per areole.

It looks sort of like a sparsely spined macrogonus and sort of like a bridgesii on steroids.

I'll get a bunch more images posted but want to focus on where this all started for me before returnign to this.

Here is one for starters. Please be patient with me for more images as they will come.

post-900-1187666860_thumb.jpg

post-900-1187666860_thumb.jpg

post-900-1187666860_thumb.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

... Hope you get them to flower.

My thought exactly!

Edited by AZS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

hi AZS

this is taquimbalensis var wilka (really curvy spines, especially the upper ones of each areole) perhaps the sexiest trichocereus

where did the seed came from?

these are really reminiscent of my own, both the taquimbalensis and the terscheckii, and I wonder if they come from (nomad botanicals seed 2007 season)

anyway

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

...where did the seed came from?

Mystery solved - only to lead to a greater mystery ( like so many of my other plants )

OK here goes: I got the two seedlings several years ago from an acquaintance who started them from seed and told me they were Werds. I didn't think twice about it and just put them in a pot in the back yard. I thought at the time that he got the seeds from his own plants but later found out that the seed source was supposedly Bach's in Tucson. ( Bach's later told me they don't sell seed )

So...not really sure where the hell these seeds came from but hopefully these two will flower and produce more! I would like to see these two crossed and also try to make some interesting hybrids. It may take a few more years before they flower, but if they do I will offer up some seeds - keep you fingers crossed!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I have some half year old taquimbalensis seedlings right now. Can't wait till they're bigger!

Edit: Sorry, off topic.

Edited by hostilis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I've some 6 month old huancoensis seedlings... Isn't that what this whole thread was about.... Huancoensis??...........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Just getting ready to put these outside...(and stressing them a little under the Arc tube)

4 month old SS02-x-Huanucoensis from SS

SS02-x-Huanucoensis.jpg

And...4 month old Huanucoensis-x-SerraBlue

Huanucoensis-x-SerraBlue.jpg

Edited by AZS
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

mine which were taquimbalensis wilka like yours came also as werdermanniannus.. The looks and the age of the cacti are really close to mine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

mine which were taquimbalensis wilka like yours came also as werdermanniannus.. The looks and the age of the cacti are really close to mine.

I just got some labelled as werdies with that curved spinage

Trichocereus werdermannianus WS259 Chaipiuco, Potosi, Bolivia (2937m) was their tag ...from hungary
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

^^^^^

balkan growers are very conservative, you might find some using names from the 18th century.

(the location info is not bad to keep though)

back to huanu:

this thread is a joke, being stickly and all...

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

They are all real species, the question rather is whether one considers the name applied to a particular sort of plant valid or not, and that depends on the "experts" one consults.

~Michael~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Guys, please don´t argue about this stuff. It´s not worth it. It is not my intention to whirl through the HOW TO Threads that are sticky and question every Pic that´s posted there because someone suddenly declared me a so called "Expert" on Trichocereus. Far away from it! The trichocereus website is a Project from me and the members, for the members. Simple as that. I will NOT regroup anything! Neither here, nor there. I have no taxonomic intentions and I'm happy to let the "Experts" sort it out.
I like Huanucoensis though it´s obviously not a valid species. We will keep em though they are taxonomically not that different from Peruvianus and Pachanoi. If we would start questioning the validity of every plant, using modern taxonomic standards, the whole Trichocereus ID concept that we use would collapse like a house of cards. I am well aware of that so i don´t even try. I grow cacti because I like it and I wouldn't even want to touch the whole Trichocereus Taxonomy with a 10ft pole. Taquimbalensis and Tacaquirensis are wonderful Trichos and they deserve their own Thread. Apart from that, we will keep on doing what we ever did.

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

not worth it? of course its worth it. just because I am in a garden of peace loving hippies It doesnt mean I should be a hippy too.

They are all real species, the question rather is whether one considers the name applied to a particular sort of plant valid or not, and that depends on the "experts" one consults.

Really? All are real species? which ones and what species? and btw who gives a fuck about the name? who named this cactus huanu anyways? some dude that brought hybrid seed in us at the 50s ??

try to prove huanu being a real species. You may start with the definition.. then prove (deabte) its not a peruvianus. then we will see.

you say you're not an expert, but I remember you saying you're an expert debater.

***

but whatever the case, the concept that our opinion depends on which 'expert' we follow is so shallow that its quite telling.

Honestly this sums up my opinion on expertise being regarded as godly vision (whether them experts accept the term or not)

Experts are useful for those that cant comprehend or access data.

and oh EG, whats you're opinion, as a mod, that we got a sticky on a non-species which definately creates more confusion? while other true species have not a sticky of their own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Guys, i´d prefer to stay out of whatever you two guys have there since it´s obviously not Love. ;) Apart from that, i don´t consider Huanucoensis a Species but that neither makes this a fact nor Michael less competent. A lot of this Trichocereus Classification is based on personal Believes and Opinions and i will not force my Opinion on an experienced Cactus Grower like Michael. I´m sure he has valid reasons for whatever theory he prefers.

As a moderator, i don´t really intend to unpin the Huanucoensis Thread because it´s a fantastic Variety and one of my personal favorites though BLA MODERN TAXONOMY BLA BLA. Probably wouldn´t pin it today, but it´s a great Thread with rare Pictures and I am happy to leave it. I´m glad we have pics of it and i don´t want to start looking for them on the 50est Page or so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

and btw who gives a fuck about the name?

you drunk again bro?

got all tanked up on your favorite brewski and hit the forums again didja? :wink:

for someone who (supposedly) doesnt give a fuck about a species name, you sure do get worked up over it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

^^^^

heh, no it was too early for that then. okey I admit I can be a dick sometimes, okey, oftentimes

We are talking about a peruvianoid clone here, right??

I love taxonomy, and taxonomy does not mean (to me) as many names as possible, it means to understand why this is a distinct species from that. And then I like to have distint clones of different species and compare then and understand what makes them be the same genus... and moreso, in growing trichocerei, which is an already hybridised mess, having hybrids between species we consider somewhat 'true' ... but still, when one of the 3 scopXjuuls hybrids is so fucking scop, you can call it scop forma younameit, but its still a scop, if it looks like it, whatever its lineage, that's what I am saying... now if it has 7 ribs, and they're not so scop-roundy , so a 'real' scopXpach phenotype, now that's a 'true' hybrid in the sense it evidently got feats of the both of supposely distinct species (scop and juuls pach) . But I am tending to see it more practically , in the sense of what IS genus, what is species? Think of mushrooms, f.e. why the gilled genus Paxilus is related to porous family Boletalles? you are told this by the experts, but you can verify this is a practical way yourself!

okey , my arguements...

1) this is not really a guide to ID "huanu" , because there is lots of confusion and no real distinct features (let alone some comments on the flower making distinct from peruvianus/ pachanoi) . The very owners of the clone say its so diverse. Namely this clone is said to have both short or no spines (?!?) and longish spines (!??!) . Huntingtons "huanu" seem to not be a real "huanu" and Smith shows what seems to be a bridgesiioid. Confusion.

2) after having taken and look at trouts notes, and from zellys plants photos from this thread, one is for certain: this is a peruvianoid , so in all honesty this could be well named as peruviana huanu, or peruviana huana as it sounds betta , anyways, name it var/forma/whateveryoulike , but please mention its a paruvianoid! Interesting is seeing trouts comments 9at least how I interpret it) how it could easily be a peruvianus X Juuls, or anyways a peruvianoid X juuls.

3) There are some clones that can be distinguished from others, and maybe I am a fool for talking without owning a clone named "huanu" , but hey would you guys tell eileen from a bunch ? Some clones, yeah can be distinguished, like Yowie, or TIG (Psycho said to have similar spine formation)

I like thoughts about how Eileen might be your awerage bridgesii, TIG might be psychO, or that NZ pachanoi might be juuls giant or anything like that, and I think people dont really like these associations because they might "lose" some supposed variety. You know there are dividers and uniters. I am a uniter. but not in the sense echinopsis should be merged with trichocereus, no no, for fucks sake.

I can admit thought that ALF, and OMAR (oz named clones), since being grown out, really look like PC pachanoi.

but not pachanoi "2" (SAB) which Smith had told me some years ago it looks special but now he say its rather a pc.

pachanoi "2" is still special and it strikes me like a crossover (or missing link) between the PC and whatever.

pachanoi "2" has longer spines than the PC, is bluer than the pc or any pachanoi of mine, and maybe there is even some peruvianus phenotype there too. and its budding!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

you know, stuff like that.

no "it can be like this it can be like that" , sure we know this, more sun = more spines etc. and different growing styles and sun locality produces different result. what about this supposed huanu right to a not pc pachanoi, a true blue peruvianus and and fattu bridgesii and detailed comparison?

what makes a huanu a huanu?

4) I knew something was wrong with name werdermanianus when I realised I had said and written the name wrong for 3 years! I said it "wendermanianus". I remember even correcting some people for saying it "wrong" here in sab, got corrected, but still went on to call it wendermanianus. Ahhh, nice times!!!

5) so we got a pinned ID thread establishing a name that gets taken for a species, for just a US peruvianus clone , perhaps a hybrid with julls, or perhaps there's some bridgesii in it, who the hell knows, but we dont got pinned the scopulicola species or both terscheckii and taquimbalensis complexes. huh? And this is one of the main instances... You know I got a blue peruvianus with not a lot spination but unlike icaro and los gentiles, it came from israel and I like to call it true blue. You could well say it looks like zelly's one. or some of that dude bits awesome peruvianus...

In fact, true blue is better described than this "huanu" :P

6) lots of mention for TPC , where the the P means peruvianus, where the cacti are really pachanoi. What's with that? while some ozzie specimes indeed seem like peruvuvianoids, even though them too are not blue.. should I be calling me pachanoi monsters peruvianus, just for the sake of it??

7)

hypothetical scenario

juuls is just a pachanoi scop hybrid (increased girth and scop qualities) . now

now, huanu, is simply the holy child of a true blue X juuls..

well its still not right fuckers, unless, some dude crosses this with N1, Psycho or some fatty bridgesii

and then, next generations, cross it back to spineless scop.

Edited by mutant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

For the san pedro trichos, I guess it might help to let the classic understanding of true species behind. I mean, what defines a true species? Take TJG for example. It's most likely only a hybrid of some sort just like many others. Nature doesn't care about true species if chromosomes are close enough. Within a certain pollen range, they all interbreed. From one seed pod, every seedling can be different. Spines long, short, blue, not so much and so on. It's the same as with people. Arent we all hybrids of some sort? That's why it makes no sense to force plants in a handfull of randomly created categories, while all are most likely only a bunch of generations away and offspring might look totally different, in the next gen.

Btw, this was not directed towards the discussion if huanu is a species or not. Just a general reminder that a species can be a very fluid thing.

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well I certainly wasn't making any claim to T. huanucoensis' validity as a name, but rather only pointing out that the plant we call T. huanucoensis, or T. werdermannianus, etc., etc., are species of some sort, and that these are generally considered valid or not by the so-called experts, which none of us are. It appears that my words need to be read a lot less loosely.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It appears your words come out as loosly as they get. Don't blame the readers if you're too timid to have a real opinion.

"species of some sort"

"generally considered valid"

well they are real life cacti, of course they are "species of some sort" and "generally considered valid"

PS: you can shout that you are not a cactus expert all day, but you cannot state that nobody else is either. You would have to be an expert to say this , no? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

"Timid," now there is something I have never been accused of. I have opinions, but being too sure can also be considered a fault and I often use qualifiers to show my understanding of this. And I am far from an expert, but the knowledge I have always allows me to question even the best informed.

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
" acceptance is the answer to all my problems today. When I am disturbed, it is because I find some person, place, thing or situation -- some fact of my life -- unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until I accept that person, place, thing or situation as being exactly the way it is supposed to be at this moment."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
"Timid," now there is something I have never been accused of.

I like the fact I was the one to break your virginity on this one. Now you might remember that some left-wing autonomist but with obvious behavioural problems called you timid.

but being too sure can also be considered a fault

sure, by prudes, super libras, mediocre people, people who are, lets face it : timid

the knowledge I have always allows me to question even the best informed.

you know there are two kinds of atheists in the world. The ones that are sure there is no fucking god, and the ones that are too pussies to accept the notion "there is no god" and go with the sceptic point of view "well you cant prove there is no god!" even though they live an atheist life, more or less.

you can guess which are the timid ones and which are the brave ones.

you are telling me being sure can be considered a fault

I am telling you being afraid of making a mistake is surely a characteristic of timid, mediocre people

^^^^^^

zelly

accepting works both way, y'know...

but I always liek to go against the flow

so , as I said, it goes both ways?

I dont need to accept the others to be happy. YOU do

PS: whats the matter chicken, noones talking about huanu now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

You can deride me all you want, but you only unnecessarily besmirch and attack my character and nothing I have contributed to the discussion of cacti. This while I have not attacked your character at all. If you find yourself the better man for this then your insights are weaker than your accusations. For all the flubbing and uncertainty you appear to find in my words my contributions will not be forgotten and nor would but a few prefer my silence.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Ok, I'm calling a Stop to this NOW!

Mutant, i understand that you are passionate about this Topic but i also greatly appreciate Michaels Input in any Thread we have and i need you to stop attacking him now. This is NOT worth it! I guess you made your stance on this very clear and i really think that we are all Adults and tolerant enough to have different Opions! Besides, this wasnt even an Issue until now. Honestly, this is so minor & trivial that i will not tolerate to have such a heated discussion over it. Again, Passion is something great but on a Forum like this, Tolerance is extremely important! If the Guys in the Taxonomy Workgroups would attack each other like that, there would be no one alive after the first Round of discussions! bye Eg

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

you know there are two kinds of atheists in the world. The ones that are sure there is no fucking god, and the ones that are too pussies to accept the notion "there is no god" and go with the sceptic point of view "well you cant prove there is no god!" even though they live an atheist life, more or less.

Mutant my friend, don't get confused. People who say that can't prove there's no god nor can they prove there's a god are labeled agnostic or humanists. Yes a lot of them live like atheist but they never claim there's no god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Atheists are very spiritual people.

Do I believe in God?

I believe in Huanuco. Praise be to Huanuco

HUANUCOENSIS WILL RETURN! HUANUCOENSIS LOVES YOU!

:innocent_n::crux::innocent_n:


  • Like 3

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

×