Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
mutant

How to recognize Trichocereus Tacaquirensis / Taquimbalensis

Question

In seeing how my "taqaquirensis" seedlings looklike taquimbalensis, and noting that some people's werdermanianus also look taquimbalensis, I am pretty thrilled to compare all of them. Well we got some mature ones to show, again, compare with the last photo if ya like to judge the growth speed.

1. taquimbalensis plain, came with a kk number from sab. Mostly straight spines

P1110081.jpg

2. taquimbalensis var wilka, seed grown, love this clone because it's still a 7-ribber and its probably my darkest-green coloured tricho. It's definately NOT as fast as "Efi" , but EFI spent 1 year on a pereskiopsis...

P1110082.jpg

3. taquimbalensis var wilka forma EFI . This clone has earned its name in my opinion for a number of reasons. It got named after my ex, which was a pretty curvy girl, and so is this clone. Note that this EFI specimen was taken from the mother plant, was rooted and eventually got to be bigger than the seed grown wilka (2) that is of the same age like the EFI motherplant. Efi and the awesome 7-rib wilka (2) are coming from the same seed batch. I got another two of them outside , in the ground, but I should probably take them out to grow in a proper containter. Efi is pretty willing to increase her rib number and has the most awesome ribs - also this my only female trichocereus ! , oh, there's Eileen too! :P

P1110083.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Hey Philocacti! I am just in the middle of reworking all the descriptions on trichocereus.net and I will add some simple keys and descriptions here on SAB too. But yeah, might take a month or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Looks a lot more taquimbalensis to me but im no expert :)

the colour could be from growing conditions. My taquimbalensis cutting i got was the same colour as my chiloensis when i received it but is now a realy nice dark-green!

I'll upload some pics when i have a bit more time this week :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If it wasn't for the tip shot I'd be a lot more reluctant to call it chilensis, it does indeed look like taquimbalensis from afar. But that growing tip is very typical for chilensis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yes, Philocacti´s plant is Trichocereus Taquimbalensis. Pretty sure about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

definitely a Chilensis. I am 100% certain. But they can look very similar to Taquimbalensis.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

lol, when did I say that and what was the pic I was referring to? But that happens a lot more often to me that you´d think. Some plants can look totally different on two pics and sometimes, gut feelings are just wrong. I was wrong plenty times in my life and I guess it will never stop. But yeah, the plant that Philocacti posted in post 22 is a Taquimbalensis. If I called it Chilensis before, I was obviously wrong. Not a chilensis but Taquimbalensis. The spinations are definitely similar but the general look of this plant screams Taquimbalensis now. Not sure how it looked earlier and I probably had reasons to believe it is Chilensis but whatever got into my mind that lead to the conclusion it´s Chilensis was bs.

Edited by Evil Genius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

No offence intended EG, I just couldn't help myself! :lol:

Trichocereus identification is often tricky to say the least with so many different forms and intermediaries, and the fact that all those dozens upon dozens of species and forms easily hybridize with each other definitely doesn't help anything either.

I see traits of both in that plant. But it's an amazing looking plant whichever name you decide to put on it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here you go.....just found the thread post #153

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19673&page=7

Don't worry EG :), you said you need a better shot to be sure :D

Thanks a lot for the ID guys.

What got me confused is, most websites show T. chilensis as either extremely fat with curved spines or very skinny with curved spines and this one's girth is different then the pics.

Edited by Philocacti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

To bad I don't have any pictures, but the plant I grew from Trichocereus skotsbergii seeds looked almost identical, including the swolen spine base. It may have been misidentified, but the seeds definitely were collected in Chile. Just saying, I was comparing with that, but I'm perfectly willing to accept this as taquimbalensis. :) I sincerely hope I didn't offend anyone, I have nothing but respect for you EG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I agree that Philo's specimen is taquimbalensis

Trouts notes are not helping much with description, and moreover theres not description of chilensis

my impression on how to tell the difference

I have only got chilensis as seedlings.. not found but bought as such.. they grow very slowly and are prone to root rot if left wet in winter (like real cacti and all) - I have grown terscheckii from seed and taquimbalensis too , taquimbalenbsis are much much faster while chilensis are supposed to be slower than terscheckii

I have similar sized pasacanas and terscheckiis and sometimes its possible for some terscheckiis to get confused with pasacanas.. But in my eyes, or at least my chilo specimens are pretty distinct, in speed of growth and phenotype.

I think some of Philo's cacti are hardgrown, they often have a different look. Maybe its the photography, or ... the dust ? But the older spines are not white in that specimen and the truck is huge, wide

PS: from another book comparing taquimbalensis and chilensis

taq is

fatter

faster

spine length is pretty varied in both species vars and its not easy to use as a feat to tell them apart

but, in taqs it can be tricky to distinguish the centrals, while some chiloensis vars can have extreme central length

trout says taq spines up to 2.5 cm but my other book says up to 8 cm which is in the chilensis zone

I am sure I got a taq with longer than 2.5. cm spines..

Anyways I would addchilensis has white or almost white older spination.. tell tell apart from the phenotype which seems to be more pointy in chilo than the roundy of taq. referring to ribs and tip

and of course the swollen spine base of taq, perhaps more distinct in var. wilkae

PS2: went for measurements

both my biggy forma wilkae have up to 4.8 cm long central or central, the interesting difference I noted, while one strain, "Efi" , seems to have a distinct single central, the other specimen seems to have two or three bigger spines but its hard to call them centrals as they take wild directions , exactly as the words in italics indicate

Also measured 3 cm centrals in smaller non wilkae specimens

Edited by mutant
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi Berengar, dont worry I am absolutely not mad. I remember the plant now and its definitely a weird plant. This is as close to Chilensis as you can get and I ´m really not entirely sure now. I agree its similar to Skottsbergii. But I feel like I can´t see that "Fielding" thats so dominant on Chilensis. But personally, I am totally unsure about this one, though I still think it rather is a Taquimbalensis. This is Skottsbergii btw. http://cactiguide.com/graphics/e_skottsbergii_a_600.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Went to see that older pic... it indeed looks like a chilensis or cuzcoensis - tricky pic!

Edited by mutant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

THIS THREAD NEEDS PICTURES!!!

Taquimbalensis wilkae next to several of the cluster

P1130116.jpg

same, wet and dry spines

P1130117.jpg

same taq, with ~5.5 cm centrals next to terscheckii with some ~12 cm central

P1130114.jpg

Edited by mutant
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here are my taq's. they are seed grown hard grown in AZ, some in shade, some in full sun. The potted ones were in full sun. I have lots available.

rO1kWBw.jpg

lzLFHPO.jpg

ANhbZWL.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi magical9, really cool type! I left a link to the thread in the facebook trichocereus group.

Edited by Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi to you all. I have been studying in this forum to try to identify my cacti.

I believe that I own a taquimbalensis after googling and studying in here. But I am unsure so I would like to have a second opinion from you folks with more knowledge.

post-16383-0-93710100-1431704614_thumb.j

post-16383-0-40858400-1431704643_thumb.j

post-16383-0-93710100-1431704614_thumb.jpg

post-16383-0-40858400-1431704643_thumb.jpg

post-16383-0-93710100-1431704614_thumb.jpg

post-16383-0-40858400-1431704643_thumb.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

yep seems like the nice form taquimbalensis wilkae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi guys/ladies.

I bought this cactus today at a nursery i never been at.

It was on sale also 50% discount. .the price. ..130skr= ~12-13 euros.

And it is. .what it looks like a taquimbalensis...or not?

post-16383-0-43332200-1435324161_thumb.j

post-16383-0-43332200-1435324161_thumb.jpg

post-16383-0-43332200-1435324161_thumb.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

yes it is...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

"Trichocereus tacaquirensis TB 551.2" from SuccSeed.

Mutant, would you say this is var. wilkae, or not, or is it still too early to say?

post-13452-0-05734000-1441996760_thumb.j post-13452-0-74288800-1441996761_thumb.j

post-13452-0-05734000-1441996760_thumb.jpg

post-13452-0-74288800-1441996761_thumb.jpg

post-13452-0-05734000-1441996760_thumb.jpg

post-13452-0-74288800-1441996761_thumb.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

werdermannius: taquimbalensis

notice how different the spines can be due to conditions, even on the same plant.

post-14583-0-69125800-1446071172_thumb.jpost-14583-0-16880400-1446071197_thumb.jpost-14583-0-19953200-1446071211_thumb.jpost-14583-0-63609700-1446071225_thumb.j

post-14583-0-69125800-1446071172_thumb.jpg

post-14583-0-16880400-1446071197_thumb.jpg

post-14583-0-19953200-1446071211_thumb.jpg

post-14583-0-63609700-1446071225_thumb.jpg

post-14583-0-69125800-1446071172_thumb.jpg

post-14583-0-16880400-1446071197_thumb.jpg

post-14583-0-19953200-1446071211_thumb.jpg

post-14583-0-63609700-1446071225_thumb.jpg

Edited by Happyconcacti
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Mr. Evil Genius,

If you see this, could you please move my post: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19673&p=518586

to this thread?

I read your post about werdermannius not being a real species. This is simply the name it was sold under at a reputable nursery here in Arizona.

If it's not a werdermannius, what do you think it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi Happyconcacti, it´s a Trichocereus Taquimbalensis. Some of them are sold and marketed as Trichocereus Wedermannianus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Berengar>> too early to tell but I think plain tacaquirensis.

P1140182.jpg

  • 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

×