Trichocereus "rosei"

[PD.]

Dunno why i have never noticed this before tonite....

Trichocereus peruvianus Br. et R. = Cereus rosei Werd. Peru.

Plant 2 to 4 m. high, much branched, with stems 6 to 10cm. thick,

erect or prostrate, bluish green passing to green or dull greyish green,

with 6 to 8 ribs and brownish areoles about 2.5cm. apart. Spines about

10, brownish, up to 4cm. long. Flowers 22 to 25cm. long, white,

sweet scented. The name rosei was given by Werdermann to distinguish

it from Cereus (Piptanthocereus) peruvianus. Very similar to T. macrogonus,

but usually more slender and often prostrate.

Taken from -

CACTI - a gardener's handbook for their identification and cultivation. BY Professor John Borg.

First published 1937 and revised by Borg before his death in 1945.

[Teotzlcoatl]

Cool.

[mark80]

Cool.

Just what we need another one liner from teotz! yay!

[gilligan]

more a useless one liner, aint it?

Some one liners are useful, they make people smile.

These ones just waste people's time.

Teotz - You should put this "rosei" info in your book

[mark80]

yes

[whiterasta]

Interesting bit I have also read and completely passed it over

More taxonomic tribulation for Trichocerei.I have come to the point where I only hold a loose ID of Panchanoid,Peruvianoid Tersheckoid,Bridgesoid and "other Trichocerei" and will await genetic work for speciation.

Agreed it should be in the epic tome of ethnobotanical edification by Teotz!

So Teotz, will you then sell the movie rights to NBC? J/K

[M S Smith]

Dunno why i have never noticed this before tonite....

Trichocereus peruvianus Br. et R. = Cereus rosei Werd. Peru.

Plant 2 to 4 m. high, much branched, with stems 6 to 10cm. thick,

erect or prostrate, bluish green passing to green or dull greyish green,

with 6 to 8 ribs and brownish areoles about 2.5cm. apart. Spines about

10, brownish, up to 4cm. long. Flowers 22 to 25cm. long, white,

sweet scented. The name rosei was given by Werdermann to distinguish

it from Cereus (Piptanthocereus) peruvianus. Very similar to T. macrogonus,

but usually more slender and often prostrate.

Taken from -

CACTI - a gardener's handbook for their identification and cultivation. BY Professor John Borg.

First published 1937 and revised by Borg before his death in 1945.

Erich Werdermann published his work in 1931 and it seems a little more than likely that he was aware of Britton & Rose's The Cactaceae which was published in 1920. Since B&R had already provided the name Trichocereus peruvianus in 1920 why would Werdermann, as Borg seems to be suggesting, have to change the name provided by B&R to differentiate it from Cereus peruvianus, a plant in a completely different taxa? Makes absolutely no sense and argues against Borg's suggestion of the names origin.

Borg may be providing accurate information regarding the description of T. peruvianus (though the diameter seems a little slim), but this doesn't necessarily mean that Werdermann's decriptions of C. rosei are the same as that of T. peruvianus provided by Borg. I am curious if Werdermann himself ever associated C. rosei with T. peruvianus. I wish I had Werdermann's book to see if the description he applied to C. rosei even matches Trichocereus. It sounds more like Werdermann applied the name C. rosei to a plant that he found bore similarities to C. peruvianus, but which he thought bore enough difference to receive its own species name. And with that I would suggest that the "rosei" found its way over into the Trichocereus arena simply due to similarities in the names of the two taxa.

~Michael~

[Teotzlcoatl]

A teotz' one liner complimenting the thread...

..and 3 posts of pure bullshit.

Who's the troll?

Please don't "teo-hate" in other peoples threads.

Whiterasta thanks for adding something worth while along with your "teo-hatin'".

epic tome of ethnobotanical edification by Teotz!

I like that.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Teotz'

[gilligan]

Teotz... Well, instead of wasting people's time with a one word post (which leads to "teotz bashing" cos you seem so retarded in doing so), why not actually put some substance behind it - even if it were something like "That's pretty interesting PD, didn't know that, thanks, i'll keep it in mind for when i am writing my book" or even just keep ur mouth shut and don't say (type) anything if you have nothing important to add?

"Cool" is as bad as your "o ok. ok cool" reply in the fricking "entheobotany" thread.

Sorry for the slight hijacking of your thread Passive... it has some interesting info (and i wouldn't've replied as i had nothing further to add), but some people just shit me to tears , and i've been told not to bottle my emotions

Gilligan out.

[Evil Genius]

I think that i have Werdermanns Book! If i find it i can make you copies! But its written in german!

One little sidenote about the Teotz bashing! I can understand both sides. I dont like people who make senseless posts myself but on the other hand its impossible to make good posts all the time. Teotz, just check out Morgs ten golden Rules about posting again and try to reduce the oneliners to an absolute Minimum. Try to be diffrent and especially not boring! That would be good for you and also very beneficial for our board! Less is really more. bye Eg

Edited April 11, 2008 by Evil Genius

[Micromegas]

Interesting... I think the treatment of Teotz here is a bit rough. Anyway I went to Bunnings the other day and they had a T.Rosei for sale, bout a foot tall. Nice specimen. But to me it looked remarkably similar to the KK242, the bumpy/indented peruvianus with the long central spines that often comes up for identification here, which I already have so I didn't bother picking it up. I did however wonder where the name came from and if it was indeed a different plant that just looked remarkably similar. Bunnings occasionally has trichs seemingly sourced from the same grower; there's been pach, peruvianus, spach, macro and scop intermittently and exorbitantly priced (sometimes $60!) and hand labelled but this is the first rosei I've seen (not bad at $26). So why would the grower be calling this trich a 'rosei'? I wonder where he/she got the information for the name and the parent plant from which it is presumably sourced? An anachronistic hangover from times gone by, or a legitimate varient worthy of purchase?

Micro

[trucha]

So far as I can determine Trichocereus rosei never was published as a real name. It does appear in horticulture although so far I have only seen the name used in Oz.

Cereus rosei appeared in print as a name in Backeberg 1931 (I can't locate any actual description in what pages I have copies of though - just a one liner by either Werdermann or Backeberg writing on Werdermann's behalf - I can't determine which. I would love to know where it was published and how I missed it.)

Werdermann attempted to rename all of the trichs as Cereus species and published this in Backeberg 1931. The name Cereus peruvianus was already taken so he tried to rename Trichocereus peruvianus after Rose. The revision was apparently not accepted by anyone outside of somebody in Oz who altered it to Trichocereus rosei.

Much more interesting is in that work (under Cereus pachanoi) Werdermann made a comment that may also be pertinent. It was noted (I paraphrase) that some of the material commonly labelled brevispinus in European collections appeared likely to be synonymous with the terms painted by pachanoi's description.

The full text containing this brief and intriguing comment can be found at

http://trout.yage.net/sc/Werdermann_1931_pachanoi.html

Edited April 15, 2008 by trucha

[PD.]

Interesting Trucha!. A specimen i purchased from the same grower that uses the name "rosei" was labeled by him as T bridgesii brevispinus. It is a VERY short spined plant that looks alot like a T pachanoi variant.

The book i mentioned previously also has this about T bridgesii,

var. brevispinus. K Sch. Ribs 7 or 8. spines very small

var longispinus. Hort. Ribs 4 or 5. Central spines very long

var lageniformis (Forst) K. Sch. Stems more or less club shaped,

6 or 7 ribs. Spines numerous but short.

Would there be a description of brevispinus in Dr Schumanns "Gesamtbeschreibung der Kakteen"?

[trucha]

As soon as I obtain a copy I will let you know.

So far all of the papers on these particular varietal names that I have obtained lacked descriptions so I am hoping that will be the one.

Longispinus seems to be merely a mention of the name and nothing else. (in Maas 1905)

(The pertinent passage from Maas 1905 and also the description of Foerster 1861 are both posted at the Trout's Notes website)

Interestingly riomizquiensis appears to now be lumped at subspecific status within pachanoi in the eyes of the people at the Kew according to what appears within the pages of the Cactaceae Consensus Initiative.

I should add that I know one grower in Oz who has both peruvianus AND scopulicola she had an unnamed Australian cactus expert identify as Trichocereus rosei.

Edited April 15, 2008 by trucha

[George]

Could he not have described the T.schoensii like the ones from colca canyon? Rosei, remins me of those pink sedepettals or whatever they call them. Maybe just a shot in the dark.

It's funny how none of the descriptions describe the sidepettals, They range from green, brown, black-brown, dark brown-red to pink. Atleast, that is what I saw from all those cooool wild pics of yours.

Awesome stuff.

[George]

Could he not have described the T.schoensii like the ones from colca canyon? Rosei, remins me of those pink sedepettals or whatever they call them. Like the pink wine they call Rosei??

Maybe just a shot in the dark.

It's funny how none of the descriptions describe the sidepettals, They range from green, brown, black-brown, dark brown-red to pink. Atleast, that is what I saw from all those cooool wild pics of yours.

Awesome stuff.

Edited May 23, 2008 by George