How to recognise Echinopsis Glauca (Trichocereus Glaucus)

[DiscoStu]

hi, so maybe there's some misidentification going around about this one. how would one go about recognising this particular species? I have two apparently one KK172 and one KK336

kk172

kk336

[DiscoStu]

this is meant to be in the id subforum can you move it for me mods please?

[M S Smith]

Those are both T. cuzcoensis forms. Here's T. glaucus from Sacred Succulents which I believe is in line with the original description. There are also other "T. glaucus" that are T. peruvianus.

~Michael~

[zelly]

Thread title, How to recognise Echinopsis Glauca (Trichocereus Glaucus)

whats in a name? lol

http://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACTI/Family/Cactaceae/53/Echinopsis_thionantha_var._glauca

and

Echinopsis glauca (F. Ritter) H. Friedrich & G. D. Rowley 1974 (Arequipa, Peru)
= Trichocereus glaucus F. Ritter 1962
Echinopsis glaucina H. Friedrich & G. D. Rowley 1974 (Arequipa, Peru)
= Acanthocalycium glaucum F. Ritter 1968 (not: Echinopsis glauca (F. Ritter) H. Friedrich & G. D. Rowley 1974 !)
= Acanthocalycium aurantiacum Rausch 1968
= Echinopsis aurantiacum (Rausch) H. Friedrich & G. D. Rowley 1974

http://www.f-lohmueller.de/botany/gen/e/Echinopsis.htm

and

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=908210

and

http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-2783438

http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-2783439

sold by Shaman Australis store:

http://shaman-australis.com.au/shop/echinopsis_glauca_kk336_plant_pr_746.php

more glauca (with pics)

http://archive.is/Fq0Z4

and

http://www.cactuseros.com/Especie/12005/Echinopsis_glauca.html

and

http://www.cactus-art.biz/schede/ACANTHOCALYCIUM/Acanthocalycium_glaucum/Acanthocalycium_glaucum/Acanthocalycium_glaucum.htm

conclusion: when the supposedly experts can pull their heads out of their collective asses, how is the lowly hobbyist supposed to know which is which?

aahhhhhhhhhh, cactophile extraordinaire to the rescue!!

[M S Smith]

The pictures I posted are of the Sacred Succulents plant as I stated and I used the qualifier "believe" with intention. I may be an extraordinary lover of cacti, but I have never claimed to be anything other than a hobbyist myself. My intent is to help others, not confuse them. If others find my words confusing then they can ask for clarification of my ideas. You can take or leave what I say; I've demanded nothing of others.

~Michael~

[Halcyon Daze]

I always just assumed that it would be a variety of peruvianus/ oid. A variety of a variety perhaps. Who knows where to draw the line on such things.

Echinopsis peruvianus var. glaucus is what I'd call it but what constitutes a real one beats me.

Probably it's the type specimen from the area in which it was originally collected. Even the name itself could be kinda meaningless as distinctively glaucous varieties could pop up all over the place.

**DISLAIMER** Please don't take anything I say personally and don't take it as fact either. It's just my opinion and I could be wrong and if you have a problem with it go F**k yrself

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=peruvianus+var.+glaucus&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=J9EGU9CUMsXCkgWIjoHoCg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=601

Edited February 21, 2014 by Halcyon Daze

[DiscoStu]

must be the full moon

Those are both T. cuzcoensis forms. Here's T. glaucus from Sacred Succulents which I believe is in line with the original description. There are also other "T. glaucus" that are T. peruvianus.

thanks. so what is it about the ones in my possession which makes them not glaucus? is it the colour of the spines? the fact that it's a little rounded on top? i notice kk172 has the little rib indents

[Evil Genius]

Edited because it was ignorant brabble.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Evil Genius

[M S Smith]

Hardly pointless, just another springboard for more information. bot6's KK plants are clearly what many of us would regard as Trichocereus and not Echinopsis (to address zelly's comments and links) and there is certainly no fault in pointing out what might be regarded as T. glaucus regardless of the validity of the name. Though the name among the Trichocereus might be fraught with confusion there should honestly be no doubt that it should not be applied to obvious T. peruvianus or T. cuzcoensis. The fact is in both cases where the name T. glaucus has been applied to T. peruvianus and T. cuzcoensis it had nothing to do with our historically illustrative taxonomists, but rather appears to have it's source with Karol Knize, and then propagated by zircon6.

The Sacred Succulents T. glaucus in my photos looks to fits into the same grouping as T. deserticola/T. fulvilanus of northern Chile. It may also be synonymous with T. uyupampensis of southern Peru, this regardless of the fact that oftentimes the larger candelabra Trichocereus (T. schoenii?) of Arequipa also wrongly get applied the name.

bot6, differentiating one species from another takes time and getting to know these plants and the way they express themselves. If this was easy it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

~Michael~

Edited February 21, 2014 by M S Smith

[zelly]

<------ Anxiously awaiting pics.....

http://trichocereus.net/gallery/trichocereus-glaucus/

[Optimystic]

another one that i think fits into that group somehow is skottsbergii...

[M S Smith]

T. skottsbergii lays more towards T. chiloensis and is often considered synonymous or a subspecies or sorts.

~Michael~

[Optimystic]

lol I was looking up litoralis after that... makes sense...
theres a bunch of spiny mofos that run together when I look at google pics

[Evil Genius]

yeah, skottsbergii is a variety of Chilensis. And a cool One! Love that Cactus!

[Auxin]

No strippers logged on in chat so time for a few T. glaucus porn shots

These were grown from seed I obtained from EG several years back (thanks again man), I should have repotted them 15 months ago but torture makes a cactus more sexy, or at least more mature looking.

There seem to be two different forms here, several with short central spines and the rest with long centrals. The central spines on the long spine type are 25-35 mm while the centrals on the short spine type are ~15 mm.

All are currently 20-30 cm tall with stems 6-7 cm in diameter, which falls within Ritters 5-8 cm stems, they have 1-3 central spines and about 8 radials. Most have very subtle V notches with the exception of my plant #6 which is also the only one with 6 ribs- all others have 8.

Plant #6 is in the middle here:

The short spine ones have areoles that tip upwards with the top going in a bit and the bottom coming out a bit.

On a few of the long spine ones the areoles are almost on tubercles, the areole tipping up with even the top not going into the stem like the right cacti in the first pic and in this one

and these two

These last two remind me of a saw blade

They dont so much look like Ritters blurry old photo but looking at mine I can see why some compare T. glauca to T. uyupampensis or T. peruvianus. It will be interesting to see mine as they get taller.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Auxin

[Evil Genius]

Very impressing! :-D Thanks for sharing man! Is it alright for you if i use the pics for the Website don´t have any pics of the motherplant.

Btw, i included some glaucus seed with every of the trading letters i sent out! ;)

[Auxin]

Sure, feel free to use the pics

[Evil Genius]

Hi Guys,

so i am currently in the process of adding original Descriptions and Text to the trichocereus website and translating everything with google Translate to english. The English Translations are buggy and will certainly be put into real English. But if you see something that isn´t right please let me know. The whole thing will take a few months because i write down the original Descriptions, just type them into google translate and edit them whenever i find the time. So don´t be surprised if the English there isn´t perfect. Won´t stop until every text is perfect!

But yeah, started with Friedrich Ritters Descripton of Trichocereus Glaucus and am halfway through. The Rest will follow!

Check it out! Trichocereus Glauca

Edited August 5, 2014 by Evil Genius

[mutant]

"EG glaucus" progeny

[Evil Genius]

This is interesting! Thanks for posting Mutant! Can´t wait to see if those plants will lean over at some point!

[mutant]

I am not sure that leaning is what the plant decides by itself, I would guess it happens more to unwatered habitat plants...

[Evil Genius]

There are some types that just creep, such as all the hanging basket cacti and some other types of Trichocereus. Trichocereus Glaucus var. pendens, Trichocereus Uyumpaensis and some other forms of Peruvianus will creep, no matter what environment they are in. Tricho Nest posted a pic of his Trichocereus Glaucus this week and ot totally leaned over, which was pretty amazing. He´s growing it in the USA where it gets a lot of regular water. The cactus looks like it would dance...it´s amazing!

Edited April 20, 2015 by Evil Genius

[mutant]

welI dont insist but I do remember that discussion on strains supposed to be prone to creep

[solaritea]

My dancing glaucus from SS doesn't get much water, EG. I'm in California with a Mediterranean climate but we're in a bit of a drought. Last year I cut back watering of my in-ground plants to just once a month May through September for 5 waterings total. They got some rain in most of the other months.

I'll get pics of the dancing glaucus added on here. It's leaning over now with lots of cracks, but it's on it's way back up.

[MrDoRight]

Here is a cutting obtained from a Central california grower , a cactus which i suspect being trichocereus glaucus , my initial impression for i.D was Trichocereus chilensis , which i based off the red spines on the new growth.

[Evil Genius]

Very nice plant, MrDoRight! Either Trichocereus Glaucus or Trichocereus Chalaensis and if I would have to guess, I´d go with the latter. The Trichocereus Glaucus seed that I spread is probably the plant that was originally described as Glaucus...and that one does not have reddish spines. But that´s a very interesting plant!