Jump to content
The Corroboree

Evil Genius

Moderators
  • Content count

    6,372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

Posts posted by Evil Genius


  1. 1 hour ago, Fluss said:

    Cactus mix sale on hardware store. Too young to tell? I think it's a Peruvian torch but not sure. 

    1532596639367-1326130762.jpg

    1532596699458-500918820.jpg

     

    Hey Fluss, this is a Melocactus or a Ferocactus. Leaning towards a Melocactus but at that size it´s too early to tell. They way it pups rules out all Andean giants like Trichocereus terscheckii and the only Trichocereus that´s remotely similar is Trichocereus candicans...and that one just looks different too. This is a very common Trichocereus-Doppelgänger. 


  2. Depends on how many crosses these were raised from. Normally, you´d write the parents of the cross on the label and assign a number for every seedling grown from that cross, eg Trichocereus pachanoi x Trichocereus bridgesii "Psycho0"-1, Trichocereus pachanoi x Trichocereus bridgesii "Psycho0"-2 and so on. If this is a mix of various hybrids where the labels are lost you could just assign one name to the collection, eg Unknown Hybrids Collection-1, Unknown Hybrids Collection-2 etc. Personally, I feel like it´s extremely important to keep track of the parents of a cross and these days I try very hard not to lose any labels. It still happens every now and then to me too. But yeah, I feel like you got a mix here and when you assign one name to all it´s kinda problematic because the plants will eventually vary greatly. It would take close inspections of every single plant to guess the parents and in most cases it doesnt work anyways. Some parents are not visible in the body, which is why you often don´t even see a recessive father for example. In such cases, Hybrids can look like a botanically pure species and that happens quite a lot.

    • Like 1

  3. What soil are you using below that covering layer? I like covering layers, but the problem with them is that the soil can look completely dry on the surface, but below it´s a swamp and you wouldn´t even notice. I´ve seen plants that looked dry as a desert, but the topping layer kinda trapped the water and that´s a problem if the soil is too organic. If I were you I´d probably look into a good potting mix made of Lava, Pumice and Coir and ditch the topping layer. 

    • Like 1

  4. I have a lot of experience with Asbestos and spotting objects that contain Asbestos. I would treat this object as potentially containing Asbestos. It looks a lot like it and I am pretty sure it is Asbestos. It´s typical for the Asbestos plates that were used as fire protection. But yeah, you would need to get a lab to confirm it. Best call a professional company and have them pick it up.

     


  5. Hey mate, there probably is a Trichocereus pachanoi somewhere under all that scale. You should definitely get it treated though. It´s really covered with a Pest called scale. You can usually treat it pretty easily, but it takes a few treatments with something like Neem or Alcohol (no treatment in the sun!). So yeah, I´d suggest you post it again after it´s clean. It´s probably T. pachanoi, but it could also be a short spine Bridgesii. 

    • Like 2

  6. Hey mate, yeah, looks like very typical Trichocereus bridgesii. Probably seed grown. it´s very difficult to ID them because most were grown from botanical seeds. The left one looks a lot like KK919 from La Paz. Right one might belong there too. It´s one of the most common Bridgesii strains on the market, 

    • Like 1

  7. Hi Floyd, the first one is a very spiny Pachanoi relative that belongs into the T. pallarensis/santaensis complex. These are often posted because they are difficult to ID. Check out a similar one. The 2-3 long spine spination is extremely typical. 

     

    Tpallarensis01.jpg

     

    Not sure about the second one as it´s still a relatively short cutting. Could be something similar, but you need to post it again in a year or two. It´s not a Trichocereus cuzcoensis. Rather Peruvianus or maybe Schoenii. Give it some time.

     

    PS: I had to remove the parts of your post that were discussing activity. It´s not allowed here. Thanks for understanding. 


  8. Hey mate, it´s still a relatively small plant so take it with a grain of salt but on the first look I´d say it could be a plant from the group of plants surrounding Trichocereus pallarensis. Pallarensis is something in between very spiny Pachanoi and Trichocereus peruvianus and these 3-4 spine areoles are very typical. Very interesting plants. Check out these here. 
     
    Tpallarensis01.jpg

     

    Echinopsis_peruviana_subsp._peruviana_(p

    • Like 3

  9. Hey mate, they look lovely. The Huarazensis x Zelly cross is one of the best ones I´ve seen this year. Can´t wait to see how mine will come out. The scop x Terscheckii have a lot of potential too. About the purple color. This kind of discoloration is usually a temporary reaction to the environment, eg when they are stressed, when they get a lot of sun or from a lamp, from the cold etc. It´s usually not permanent. That said, there are a few mutants with reddish skin color so I´ll keep my fingers crossed that it stays. 

    • Like 1

  10. Yeah, that´s pretty much what I am saying. The species Trichocereus pachanoi can be glaucous, but plants that are THIS glaucous often belong to Trichocereus santaensis. It´s not an important difference because I consider Trichocereus santaensis to be very close to Trichocereus pachanoi, but if your plant really belongs into that complex then it´s much rarer than normal versions of T. pachanoi. The glaucousness is written down as trait in the description of Trichocereus santaensis and the degree of glaucousness changes from plant to plant, and from population to population. Have a look at this plant and compare it to yours. It´s almost an exact match. What makes me so sure is the shape of the areoles and these clunky ribs. You don´t see that very often. 

     Ichoca.thumb.jpg.11f11c0cd1a2ecafaa16fb3921e5ef23.jpg

    Ichoca.thumb.jpg.11f11c0cd1a2ecafaa16fb3921e5ef23.jpg

    Ichoca.thumb.jpg.11f11c0cd1a2ecafaa16fb3921e5ef23.jpg

    • Like 2

  11. Hey Gimli, great idea for a thread. We´ll enlarge it over the next months. 
    About the list. Icaro DNA is a strain. Most of them are seed grown and not genetically identical. Bogan is probably somewhere in between T. pachanoi and peruvianus. I have it as Pachanoi on the site, but it should probably not be seen as standard Pachanoi. We could leave it in Pachanoi, but add a note that it could as well be seen as short spine Peruvianus. It gets very spiny sometimes. But yeah, good thread!  

    • Like 1

  12. Number one and two are obviously a PC or PC offspring. The third one is strange. It actually looks like it could have PC in it too, but that doesnt have to mean anything. It could be a hybrid between Rosei and PC or it´s just a very strange Rosei hybrid that looks similar. It´s much more glaucous than the others, so I tend to believe it has some Peruvianus in it but it obviously differs greatly from all Rosei clones. The spines are totally different, so it´s either something else or hybrid offspring. 

    • Like 1
×