Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
Hukstable

Peruvianus ID

Question

I bought some cactus cuts today and would like an ID on the cuts. I couldn't get any tips so the Id might be hard. Looks like a pretty fat blue Peruvianus but am no expert. Would love some input from the forum. Cuts are abou 4 inches wide and 7 inches long. Thanks!post-16401-0-72815600-1431752234_thumb.jpost-16401-0-36368500-1431752249_thumb.j

post-16401-0-72815600-1431752234_thumb.jpg

post-16401-0-36368500-1431752249_thumb.jpg

post-16401-0-72815600-1431752234_thumb.jpg

post-16401-0-36368500-1431752249_thumb.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Hey Hukstable, great type. And yes, Peruvianus. Maybe even related to the Trichocereus Glaucus group but it has to get bigger to say anything about the population and stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks, I'm going to grow both, so hopefully I'll have some pups in 6 months time. Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

...related to the Trichocereus Glaucus group..."

EG, I would of expected you to be a bit more careful than to say something like that as it means you are saying there is not only a T. glaucus that is really a T. peruvianus, but there is a "group" of them. And what, this as opposed to another "group" of less glaucus peruvianus? That Knize put a T. glaucus label on a T. peruvianus, or that a plant has a nice blue frosting, does not a T. glaucus make.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi Michael, was just writing the page about Trichocereus Glaucus on my German Version of the Trichocereus website and added pics of the plant Auxin grew from my Glaucus seed which was very similar to what the OP in this thread posted. You know, with the white felted areoles. I am currently really not sure aboutthe plants grown from my Glaucus Seed until they are big enough to lean over. I feel like Ritters description of Trichocereus Glaucus lacks good pics and so far, I havent seen any Glaucus that would justify being a seperate species. Trichocereus Peruvianus is a creeper sometimes and if that´s the only thing that Ritters Glaucus differentiates from a Peru, it is simply a Peru too. I mean, the growth type isn´t something that would justify keeping it as a real species.

Personally, I would probably lump them all together, including Trichocereus Glaucus because I never saw a good pic and I am pretty sure that Trichocereus Glaucus will pretty much fall into the Peruvianus description. So when I mentioned it, I probably should have also mentioned that Trichocereus Glaucus is by no means a real species. I was just noting the similarities to the pics I had just posted somewhere else. Because there is a substantial number of those on the market and they usually come by the name Trichocereus Peruvianus. Which is probably the right name anyway.

The Trichocereus Glaucus that you grew from Sacred Succulents seed looks like a standard Trichocereus Chalaensis and at the moment, I think that the plants that Ritter described as Glaucus are either Perus or a variety of Trichocereus Chalaensis. So no matter what, the species wouldnt stand. But I am happy to change my mind if I should ever come across a Trichocereus Glaucus that would deserve it´s name. So far, all I saw were Perus or Chalaensis. What do you think about the Sacred Succulents Glaucus? Do you think it´s different than Chalaensis?

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi EG, any chance you could post those pics that you mentioned above? The auxin seed grown. Thanks

Also what do you think is the best way to propagate these cuttings? Log method?

Edited by Hukstable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yeah sure. But yeah, yours is different though and apart from the felted areoles, they have not enough in common. And your plant is still too small to say anything about what type it is. Environment has a huge influence on the look of a plant. Your´s is really extremely glaucous and I´d love to see a larger Version of it one day.

This is the pic and I feel like your plant is also very similar to what Knize sold as Trichocereus Glaucus. Compared to this Glaucus, it has shorter, stump Spines. Please keep in mind that I only use those names because of nostalgia and under the current taxonomy, this is actually a Peruvianus. And because of good reason because It´s just a very variable species.

At some point they might lean over but I am really not sure how they will turn out to be a adult plants. I guess I shouldnt have brought up the name Glaucus because it complicates things. At the end of the day, they are more or less Peruvianus. But most collectors would label a plant like yours Trichocereus Macrogonus or Glaucus. It´s also very similar to what Köhres sold as Glaucus for a while.

Glaucus-EG4-787x1024.jpg

Edited by Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Regardless of what Knize may have regarded as T. glaucus for sales purposes I can't see how proper T. Peruvianus and and those plants more accurately labeled T. glaucus are much similar. The plant immediately above, and that which started this thread, look like common forms of T. peruvianus.

Here's Knize's own photo of T. glaucus.

post-19-0-38938500-1431864228_thumb.jpg

Here are some more SS T. glaucus.

post-19-0-58937200-1431863906_thumb.jpg post-19-0-23532100-1431863922_thumb.jpg post-19-0-44355100-1431863936_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-81914900-1431863947_thumb.jpg post-19-0-51762100-1431863961_thumb.jpg

T. glaucus, T. chalaensis, and T. lucernatus may me the same species, but they are not T. peruvianus if you ask me, but I do wonder if T. glaucus gets confused sometimes with the T. peruvianus-like T. schoenii of Arequipa.

~Michael~

post-19-0-58937200-1431863906_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-23532100-1431863922_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-44355100-1431863936_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-81914900-1431863947_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-51762100-1431863961_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-38938500-1431864228_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-58937200-1431863906_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-23532100-1431863922_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-44355100-1431863936_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-81914900-1431863947_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-51762100-1431863961_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-38938500-1431864228_thumb.jpg

Edited by M S Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well the problem is that there isn´t really one good pic of Trichocereus Glaucus. But Ritter wrote that it would be extremely related to Trichocereus Chalaensis and that´s why I assume that Trichocereus Glaucus could just have been a variety of Trichocereus Chalaensis. Wouldnt be the first time two people described the same plant using different names. From all the plants labeled Trichocereus Glaucus that I raised, basically all turned out to be more or less glaucous Peruvianus.

It´s actually good thinking and it´s possible that Trichocereus Schoenii was what Ritter described as Trichocereus Glaucus as both grow around Arequipa. But I lack a confirmed pic of Trichocereus Schoenii, though I´ve seen some Peru´s from Arequipa. Do you have a pic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

T. glaucus is probably the same as T. chalaensis, or at least quite closely related.

Here's Bob Ressler's T. glaucus.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wwwcolumnarcactuscom/8353744425/in/album-72157632449961945/

Here's Bob Ressler's T. chalaensis.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wwwcolumnarcactuscom/8354542302/in/album-72157632449961945/

And now Bob's T. lucernatus (nomen nudum).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wwwcolumnarcactuscom/8354800094/in/album-72157632449961945/

The T. chalaensis at your site is a little difficult to get a read on due to being in black and white and having nothing surrounding it to give scale.

http://trichocereus.net/trichocereus-chalaensis/

Check out the presummed T. schoenii at the following link.

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30115

Maybe you can find more in the original work by Rauh.

http://www.tropicos.org/Name/5101470?tab=references

I really wish everyone would stop using T. glaucus for T. peruvianus as they are clearly different plants, and regardless of the confusion surrounding T. glaucus, T. chalaensis, and even T. lucernatus none are like T. peruvianus in form.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks for all the great info guys. To help with a better Id, I asked the lady I bought the cactus off to send me a picture of the mother plant that wasn't cut. This is a picture of a smaller branch. Maybe not as glaucus as my cuts. Beautiful cacti, can't wait for mine to grow.post-16401-0-02062700-1431917355_thumb.j

post-16401-0-02062700-1431917355_thumb.jpg

post-16401-0-02062700-1431917355_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Better ID? It's just a T. peruvianus.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Sorry I meant easier to ID compared to my cuts. Thanks for the Id.

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

×