mutant Posted December 11, 2008 I wonder what would be the main characteristics of these fatty trichs, as well as other similar trichs of the fatty 'family'... They grow more slowly than the fast growing trichs, I know that. They have more dense and long spination than pachanoi family. What else? I am supposedly growing both species, so it should be fun Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) on species Trichocereus atacamensis pasacana: Plants for sale are still most often described as pasacana, but T.atacamensis was described first (from Chile), and so at subspecies level the name pasacana, applying to plants from Argentina and Bolivia, must subordinate to the older name distribution: northern Argentina, southern Bolivia, Chile note: no mention on terscheckii on this entry. Could the chilean subspecies be slower in growth than the Argentinian / Bolivian cousins? on species T. terscheckii: distribution: northern Argentina note: it is stated its the tallest cactus of the region, and the given width is wider than pasacana, so it is implied terscheckii is larger growing than pasacana. The slow growth is also mentioned in both terscheckii and pasacanas, but the two species are never directly compared in any way. on species T.tacaquirensis: In cultivation growth is rapid note: also mentioning taquimbalensis, the other form as subspecies, which as a name subordinates to tacaquirensis. The author mentions that the form from the one type to another changers gradually in the course of a days travel. Next one fro Bolivia?? "500 cacti", Preston 2007 Edited July 8, 2014 by mutant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 M S Smith Posted July 8, 2014 See my comments about Preston here... http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15744&p=471698 ~Michael~ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) see my reply to Smiths ignorant dismissal of a fine book (edit: again a misundestanding between me and smith, not editing my post so as not to loose continuity) http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15744&p=471793 Edited July 18, 2014 by mutant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 M S Smith Posted July 9, 2014 "See my comments about Preston..." Your ignorance of my actual words is astounding. ~Michael~ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted July 9, 2014 Oh, sorry, I thought you were dismissing it... I still haven't understand if you have read it, but you're off-topic for sure... why not making a thread on the "mysterius" Preston who hires cacti experts to write cacti books for him and then signs them himslef (preston)... ?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) 6~7 y.o. from seed tescheckii adding ribs after being transplanted Edited July 18, 2014 by mutant 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mythos Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) Hello everybody, I just wanted your help to recognize the following: The first one is a Trichocereus Wendermanianus I got from Hungary. But for the rest I have no clue (maybe a pasacana) Front Top Do you know what is the problem with the Wendermannianaus? Thank you! Regards Edited November 8, 2014 by mythos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Evil Genius Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) Ok, first Pic. The Two Ones on the left could be candicans but Pasacana would also be thinkable as they look very similar at that Age. The Werdermannianus in the front is Taquimbalensis and the One on the right is probably the same as the other Two on the left. Need better pics to say for sure. The sick one looks like it has a fungal infection. Needs EXTENSIVE Fungicide Treatment and maybe cutting. Don´t think you can save it without treatment. Edited July 20, 2014 by Evil Genius 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Evil Genius Posted July 20, 2014 But would rather lean towards candicans because the epidermis doesn´t really look typical for Pasacana. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted July 20, 2014 agree, 3 that look lot like tacaquirensis / taquimbalensis seedlings and one that is too small to tell . there mid one also be terscheckii or pasacana, but its too early to tell. all for the infected "werd" I would say it you keep it dry and take care not to spill water on the mark it should be alright especially if your area is as dry is mine right now 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mythos Posted July 20, 2014 Thanks everyone. These were also my thoughts. From left to right: Candicans, Pasacana, and Taquimbalensis. Regarding the infections I will try to keep it dry. The place here is too dry also. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted July 31, 2014 pasacana VS terscheckii 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Optimystic Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) sum Werder labeled seeds produced these some runts.... the ones I repotted have stalled or grown little over several months while the ones I didn't repot are doing great! im being patient tho ... I guess they are root mining first when they wake up or something And here is how they look grafted... they took many months to pump even on pereskies a couple of them pumped early but then stalled for many months and grew when they wanted I do think I remember now the first one took off within 6 or 7 months and the next in line was 11 months... at least one just started pumping in the month but i need to check the born date. the two on the right are the same, the top one early in the year before starting to grow. I have a couple smaller ones but its hard to get to right now, but i'll post sometime some look really crazy when they are pumping.. heres some pics of some of the previous grafts earlier this year when they were pumping... actually one of them is still small but the others are the same as the bigger plants above this one got smushed by a camera lens... several months of patience wiped way by a single moment of impatience.... lesson learned... and RIP little guy And then there are these which came labeled Macrogonus from Ibloc labeled Macrogonus from WSS front row is WSS and behind them a few of the same clone + 1 different from Ibloc seed they look more similar in this pic but I think the Ibloc ones are different at least much different parents... but perhaps the same type I dunno is there a way to remove "attached thumbnail"? I already have the pic in the body of the message Edited July 31, 2014 by Spine Collector 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 interbeing Posted November 8, 2014 Trichocereus werdermannianus 'KK 917' 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 zed240 Posted November 8, 2014 Werdermannianus from Adelaide botanic garden. Great looking plants. 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Evil Genius Posted November 8, 2014 Hello Zed, nice Pics! Most likely Taquimbalensis! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 terraferma Posted November 25, 2014 A friend of mine owns this plant which he describes as a Trichocereus Werdermannianus. Are you guys in agreement? 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Evil Genius Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Hi Terraforma, that´s a Trichocereus Taquimbalensis! I guess Backeberg liked calling them Werdermannianus! Edited November 25, 2014 by Evil Genius 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Berengar Posted November 25, 2014 Does anyone have a picture of what a 'true' werdermannianus is supposed to look like, or is it simply a synonym for either tersheckii or taquimbalensis, depending on the author? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Evil Genius Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Hi Tangich, there is not really a true Werdermannianus. The Plant was "discovered" by Backeberg, who was a smart business Man but not really a botanical Genius, though some of his Discoveries are really remarkable. He wrote a six Volume Book called Cactaceae, which was a state of the Art Book back then. But it was full of Errors and used a taxonomic System that was simply bs. There are pics that show "his" werdermannianus but most simply look like a Terscheckii. But they could also be a very large Taquimbalensis and Judging by the large Number of Taquimbalensis´ that we see labeled as Werdermannianus, i guess that´s actually the Plant he meant. If it isn´t, it was simply a Plant from the Complex around Terscheckii and Pasacana. I will post his Pics later today or tomorrow. Edited November 25, 2014 by Evil Genius 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Optimystic Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) sum weerdness brought to you by werderbalensis 9 days later update on the others the unknown ones seem to have gotten a bit more curvy spined in some cases Edited November 25, 2014 by Optimystic 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 ☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) here's a real/true werdermannianus Edited November 25, 2014 by ☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 ☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) and I found this beauy terscheck hunting images and that one .. Edited November 27, 2014 by ☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted December 21, 2014 EG this should be renamed and sticky abouthe fatties, please a pasacana with lots ribs my biggest one 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
I wonder what would be the main characteristics of these fatty trichs, as well as other similar trichs of the fatty 'family'...
They grow more slowly than the fast growing trichs, I know that. They have more dense and long spination than pachanoi family. What else?
I am supposedly growing both species, so it should be fun
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites