Jump to content
The Corroboree

mutant

Trusted Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,462

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Posts posted by mutant

  1. Posted · Edited by mutant

    I just had some pics toshare, but I started reading the whole thread and there seems to be some shit to say..

    first

    TH>> I tend to regard the 'validus' I sold to you a terscheckioid, only with sparcer spination and maybe larger girth and speed growth. we'll see... I was probably wrong to compare it to validus specimens we have seen from oz...

    Optimystic>>

    the "unknown ones" seem to be taquimbalensis var wilkae , fine cacti, finer than tersscheckii pasacana if you ask me, but they're not

    terschecki/pasacana... it seems lots of taq wilkae seed has been sold as werdermanianus..

    EG>>

    you're not really a 'uniter' , huh? :)

    ====

    ok now the pics

    terscheckiis, pasacanas and a taquimbalensis = taquimbalensis var wilkae = tacaquirensis var taquimbalensis ...

    P1130116.jpg

    terscheckii VS taquimbalensis

    P1130114.jpg

    in some sense terscheckiis and pasacanas can be confused... well not those two, right?

    P1130115.jpg

    ... but in this case, I was confused, but I start to make up my mind

    in this photo there are 2 suspect terscheckiis I mixed with the pasacana swarm and there's also

    the mysterious pasacanoid looking cactus, that EG once said it might not even be a tricho...

    well I am begining to feel its a pasacana , but dont nail it yet

    (besides, the only pasacanas I have seen is one large batch of seedlings II bought, some 100+ of them, at an age of 3~4 ? => which seem to have some variety , rightfully trusting my eye. but its the same batch as it seems)

    pasacanas are the most widespread of them all... maybe its the link between them all faties, maybe even chilensis...

    there should be other forms of the ones I got, which seem to be coming from a single or couple fruits

    the 'mysterious' one is of course the on the middle, the most blond, whitish...

    could it be the missing link between a spiny pasacana and a chilensis?? :P

    Gosh, i picked it from a local store when young, but boy its REALLY slow...

    P1130119.jpg

    and a quiz for the end ... tell the terscheckiis from the pasacanas

    P1130124.jpg

    • Like 4

  3. Posted · Edited by mutant

    zed> Well I am no expert but I do find taquimbalensis wilka the best looking trichocereus and tend to notice its areoles and spines a lot... the most wild spination of the cluster by far! And after the areole close up IMO this is exactly what this is : a taquimbalensis wilkae which is either very beaten up or very dirty, or stale for a long time or even dead. What do you mean you dont know if its got roots?

    in any case, 13 cm is pretty nice, try to get it growing, you might own the taquimbalensis clone with the longest spines :P

    miicrom>

    yep chiloensis =chilensis

    a book I trust and like a lot says there are at least 3 distinct vars of chilensis

    since 8 inches are 20 cm, it might be narrowed down.

    for what its worth this is my specimen and what most specimens offered for sale look like IMO

    P1130111.jpg P1130112.jpg P1130113.jpg

    and with wet spines

    P1130118.jpg

  4. Posted

    Hey did you know Saw creators are of australians?

    Read this pretty interesting interview on the Saw saga and how it came to be one of the most famous horror sagas. Its pretty interesting that the creators distance themselves from the "torture-horror" genre, stating that the sequels for which they were not responsible focused more on torture, while the first film did not.

    http://www.avclub.com/article/isaw-icreators-leigh-whannell-and-james-wan-46975

    AVC: I’m interested in the way you guys deal with criticism. You’ve put forth these genre films in an unapologetic way. Do you brace yourself for the reality that your films may be embraced in one corner, but there’s going to be a certain segment of the population, certainly the critical population, that’s just not going to engage with what they call torture-porn?

    JW: Again, with the first Saw film, we didn’t set out to make a torture movie. We had a really short segment that focused on that. But even then, it was shot in such a way where the focus wasn’t really on torture, but it was more focused on the overall mystery. The first movie played out like a mystery thriller.

    LW: Yeah.

    JW: It wasn’t like we took the torture sequence in Marathon Man or Reservoir Dogs and stretched it to the entire film. We didn’t do that. We only had it in a short segment, and the rest of the movie was just this huge mystery. It’s almost like a whodunit, right? But, like I said and as Leigh pointed out, it wasn’t until the sequels that it became more and more about [torture].

    It’s kind of a strange one for me to defend, because I ultimately didn’t direct the sequels, and I didn’t really have that big of a hand with the sequels, with the exception maybe a little bit of storyline with 2 and 3, but that was really it. And the stuff I was really involved in had nothing to do with the torture stuff. So I myself am really removed from it.

    I know my colleagues who are part of this quote-unquote “splat pack” have referred to this term “torture-porn” as lazy journalism. It’s a really strange one for me, because Leigh and I, we don’t really make those kinds of movies. Part of the disadvantage of not having hits with my other films in the same way that Saw was a hit, is people kind of look at my other stuff and go, “Oh, I see, this guy doesn’t make only one type of film. He’s made a movie like Dead Silence, which is an old-school tribute to Hammer horror films, and was all about creepy atmosphere. Then my second one [Death Sentence] was a ’70s-style revenge thriller. And then the latest one that Leigh and I made, Insidious, is an old-fashioned ghost story, a haunted-house film with a twist. So if you look at our body of work, we don’t really just make that one style of movie. I think what Saw did was really open up a huge branch of lots of these other movies that ultimately retroactively gave the first Saw somewhat of a negative reputation.

    LW: I think the first Saw film has a more violent reputation than it deserves, in the same way that The Texas Chain Saw Massacre became the yardstick for cinema violence without really deserving that. I think the title, if anything, is what really gave The Texas Chain Saw Massacre its violent reputation. Whereas if you’ve seen the film, it’s not that violent a film, certainly not one that warrants a nasty label. It’s a disturbing film. I think the first Saw film is fairly gore-free, but the sequels of course have gone on to be more and more gory, and that’s become a part of it.

    I guess the term “torture-porn” doesn’t affect me one way or the other. I don’t love the term, nor do I really hate it. For me, it’s kind of hard to have any bad feelings about the term, because I guess torture-porn has given me a lot of good things, like being able to work in the film industry and work as a screenwriter. I guess I’m just thankful to be part of a film that made it, and anything after that is just a champagne problem. The people that James is talking about, like some of our friends that work in Hollywood and are more defensive about their films being called torture-porn—I agree with James that neither of us really feel that way, because we don’t see ourselves to be a part of the scene.

    I worked as a reviewer at a magazine in Australia, and I know the media sometimes needs a shorthand when it’s talking about pop culture, about anything, really. So these terms get invented. I think it’s a bit useless to get upset about these terms. It’s not like we’re a band. Sometimes I cringe when I see bands interviewed—I’m sure you’ve seen this, Scott. They vehemently protest being slotted into a certain genre. “We’re not emo! We are not an emo band!” But I sort of see why, because it’s their sound that’s being branded as slotting into this thing. I guess if you’re a band that hopes to go on and have a long career, you don’t want to be a part of something that is naturally going to have an end.

    All these terms and trends have a life cycle. So I guess if you’re in a band, you don’t want to have your career be over and your band be over when those 15 minutes are up. But film is different, because as James said, we’ve made all these other different films, and I do think James and I are going to go on to make films in lots of different genres, hopefully. So we don’t feel any sort of malice toward it. Myself, I’m just thankful to have been a part of it. Terms like torture-porn and “splat pack” make me laugh, because I’m like, “Cool!” I think that’s awesome.

    JW: I think it is cool. Years from now, when people forget about all the negative connotations and look back at it, it’s like you were part of a movement, like it or not. And that’s cool. That is awesome. I’d love to be a filmmaker and look back and be like, “Ah, man, we were part of that whole ’80s video nasty thing!” Which people can do now. I honestly think we’ll look back with a lot of affection for this time and everything, and it’ll be great.

    [Addendum: After this interview, Leigh Whannell contacted us with one final note about the cultural impact of Saw:

    “As this last Saw film comes out and I look back at the franchise and think about what it’s all meant to me, my favorite memory is still when Saw was mentioned on The Sopranos. After all the premières and Comic-Con visits and time on set, that still stands out as the moment I knew that Saw was truly part of the cultural conversation—when a character from my favorite show mentioned the film. Even though I was pissed that James got mentioned and not me!”]

  5. Posted

    Hey since I got into reading and measuring spine lengths yesterday

    could you tell spine lengths?

    Zed, am I wrong, or there are swollen bases in that spines?

    I found a max length of 8 cm for taquimbalensis and I still am inclined to taq

    Micromegas, why isn't your specimen Chilensis? For one, older spines are white and new spines seem right too

    Really cant find many similarities between the two tbh

  10. Posted · Edited by mutant

    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

    • Like 1

  21. Posted · Edited by mutant

    P1130103.jpg

    Eulychnia castanea crest close up

    P1130100.jpg

    my breasts, all started some 6 years ago from a single rooted small smecimen

    also sold a couple on the way

    also new comers freshly out of their box

    P1130105.jpg P1130106.jpg

    6x eulychnia monstrosa 1x some strange cereus monster, probably C.aethiops and Oreocereus celcianus crest

    • Like 6
×