Inyan
-
Content count
1,233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44
Posts posted by Inyan
-
-
On 5/5/2018 at 10:18 AM, zelly said:i think the scopulicola thing needs to be re-worked.....seems that in Aus a scop can be spineless OR can have spines like a super pedro (HELON) which is just wrong imho. I have arse loads of scop hybrids with spines....are they too all HELONS?
on this side of the pond we have cordobensis AND spineless scop.
super pedro & cordobensis are the same plant & they are not pure spineless scops, imho they're hybrids of scop & something else.
I have a buncha pure spineless SEEDLINGS from aussie seed......why isnt MB scop & BB scop listed under the scop section? They're both spineless. Is there a differentiation between MB's spineless scop, BB's spineless scop & my spineless scop??
This hulk you speak of, is it spineless or does it look super pedro like. If spineless, why muddle the scop classification?
I don't believe names have to be classifications. If a person names a pure species or even a hybrid T. scopulicola seedling Helon then only it and its clones can be Helons if the name is referring to a specific clone. If however the name is referring to a specific cross or type of cross as is the case with Brugmansia aurea x Brugmansia versicolor seedlings being named B. candida or B. sanguinea x B. arborea hybrids being called B. flava. Sometimes one names the specific type of cross done such as Zelly being a cross between a fat Scopulicola and Grandiflorus hybrid. If we can have many Zelly hybrids with numbers to designate different ones we are keeping track of the specific clones identified by the number after the word Zelly which denotes a classification. Essentially, Zelly12 denotes a classification or cross first and then a specific clone of that cross second. It seems others are simply naming their individual specimens/clones without necessarily getting more specific than that. The same thing happens in Hemerocallis. You get some people that will list the parents of a particular named seedling, others will simply list one parent, or sometimes no parents are listed as the parents were unknown or unregistered seedlings themselves. The exact species involved in many complex named hybrids is often unknown. This is true whether your talking about Hemerocallis, Brugansia, cacti, etc.
Now, for me, I would like to think that when I get a named clone that the clone is indeed what it being sold as. I also like to think that the clone is superior in some form or fashion to others I might already have in my collection. What makes a clone worth keeping or naming? What makes a particular cross such as Zelly a cross worth naming? For me, Zelly hybrids having spectacularly colored flowers is definitely something I look forward to when I grow a Zelly seed. I know that cross is tried and true. I have high expectations of getting that colored flower from that particular cross.
With that being said, I have a beautiful Trichocereus scopulicola x Trichocereus terscheckii
that while quite small is already getting its 10th rib to grow in. Now, for me... I love that given many of my other seedlings from that same cross that are the same size have 8 or even less ribs. Now, am I going to give up on my other specimens and simply name this one that I think is so special? Not at all. I am going to watch and wait and see if the others will develop more ribs in time. With that being said, I like a plethora of ribs as I can't see ever having too many of them. So, chances are I'll be keeping this one for the long haul if the others don't keep up and getting rid of the rest. Perhaps one day it will prove itself worthy of a name, but chances are someone somewhere else has grown one that is just as good looking or even better already from the same cross. So, perhaps in the end this seedling might only be good enough to warrant being the parent of another great hybrid seedling that itself is also not worthy of a name. The resulting progeny will then have parents that do not have names, but perhaps one of the many seedlings produced will be worthy of a name itself... one never knows. -
-
-
36 minutes ago, DualWieldRake said:LOL, if all these assholes just came together and cried a river their problem would be solved
If all assholes cared about the environment I think the world might be a little better place. Imagine a world where every asshole did his or her own small part to take care of or improve the environment around us? A world of assholes like that... now that is something I could get on board with.
-
1
-
-
-
How can we call ourselves spiritual when so many of us sit in silence? How can we say we make a difference when so few of us make a stand? Where do we spend our dollars? What do we support? Through inaction or silence we are complicit in slowly killing the Earth and our Oceans in the same manner we are complicit in our own demise when we do something harmful to our bodies or we fail to take action to improve our health. I look at my health and I know that there is more that I could do. I know I am not the best when it comes to trying to exercise for a few minutes every day... a few minutes that I could easily waste on youtube, television, etc. Yet, I know that when I can find the time to spend just 2 minutes to do a set of pull-ups I am working to improve my health in a very real way. I can see and feel the difference with just 2 minutes a day of exercise like this. 2 minutes of pull-ups. 2 minutes of pushups. 5 minutes running... anything is better than doing nothing and consistency is key.
I find the need to speak out on my spirituality which is grounded in a love of this planet and for life on this planet. To bring to light in this moment of time in my own mind if no one else's the importance of the Earth and how much she means to me. To reflect and empower myself with knowledge on how we can make a difference even if that difference is the equivalent of taking 2 minutes out of the day each day to do pull-ups. I'm over 100 kgs in weight and yet I can still lift more than my bodyweight in all major exercises to include simple things like pull-ups with my simple routine. For me, it is about taking the time to express that we can make a difference simply by sharing or learning about how we can help the environment or what we are doing to harm the environment. It is about taking responsibility for our own bodies and for the Earth. Knowledge is power and sharing knowledge has never been more easy than it is today.
We affect others with our posts when we share things. Some to a greater degree and some to a lesser degree, but we are all connected. Mitakuye oyasin... reflect on what it means to be related or connected to others as we are all connected in this great web of life. The air we breath, the water we drink have all been recycled.
I want to say, I don't do much to stay in shape. I often don't do enough and I slip a bit. But I always stay in shape enough to lift more than my own weight. I don't do much in the way of environmentalism either. I do however speak out on the acidification of the ocean every time I hear someone say something about global warming. I talk about it. I am not silenced. I will not be silenced when it comes to my support for the Earth. I've gone to rallies and the like, but is there more I could do? You bet there is, but like my own health... I tend to do enough to keep me in decent shape and not enough to make me a marathon runner.
With Earth Day just a few days ago... how many of you took the time to go to one of the local celebrations? How many of you had a local celebration to go to?
For me, I don't think it is necessary for us all to be marathon runners or professional level power lifters to maintain good health. I do think that a bit of exercise... even just a 2 minutes each day can make a world of difference in my health and general feeling of wellbeing so long as I am generally consistent with those 2 minutes. Don't get me wrong, I have my 2 minute rule or 1 set minimum I try to hold myself to, but I do more on some days if I feel like it. In the same manner, I go to Earth Day events, March on Washington D.C., etc. as time and schedule permits.
What I am trying to say here is for me, spirituality begins with taking care of yourself. Setting a minimum standard for yourself to strive to achieve each day. More is certainly great, but for me you have to have clear minimums that you don't want to fall below. After you have taken care of your own minimum needs you can start to work on your other minimums. For me, one of those minimums are letting others know that there are others like them that do care. We can all do our small part to effect change.
Decide what your minimum is then strive to reach it each day. Mitakuye oyasin
-
2
-
-
-
-
We need more good songs that provoke a real understanding and emotional connection with this great planet of ours.
-
These two babies are very nice beginnings from Zelly seed.
and an unknown here....
. Yes, I'm a bit crazy as I can't seem to get enough of these genetics. I'm thinking that the last one is perhaps related to this little guy...
-
I've grown mine in what I call bog-ponics. I can tell you... I do have to toss a very large percentage of my Trichocereus hybrids with bridgesii in the mix due to them not being able to take the excess water or humidity. It seems that black and red growth/ infections are very easy for that lot to get when you grow them in a continual bog like environment. For other hybrids/species I find that some that seem robust and grow fast in water/bog type environments still occasionally submit to the same types of infections... just many more months down the road.
My personal suggestion, if you grow specimens that can take the water load and keep wet feet... don't ever assume they won't succumb to infections later on down the road. Keep a back up clone if it is a very important or rare specimen. With that said, I'm still experimenting with my own cacti with seeing how much they can take, but I've allowed all of my cacti to dry up for a brief spell as my losses were getting too high for even my own comfort after growing my cacti through the winter months this year. My experiments/cacti this year were all pushed to grow in water at temps in the upper 30's... just a wee bit over freezing with just light dips into freezing for very short periods of time. Many came out with light freeze damage after that and I lost many more. I feel like what I have left is fairly hardy after all of that, but I still have to cull some that are looking sickly.
-
1
-
-
This little Trichocereus scopulicola x Trichocereus terscheckii is quickly becoming one of my favorites. It is still very young yet and to be honest, I've neglected this one... still once I found her growing I had to water immediately and post.
-
Some scopulicola x terscheckii hybrids
-
I'd also add, a shade cloth or only introducing your cacti to direct sunlight for an hour at a time and slowly increasing exposure over time works great if you have slipped up and not grown your cacti in full sunlight or can't for whatever reason. Everything in moderation so to speak. I really should have put that information in my first post. Hope this helps.
-
1
-
-
I grow my variegated Trichocereus in full sun from the day they are sown as seeds. Seems to work just fine for me that way. If you don't grow your cacti in full sun however, you can burn them regardless of whether they are variegated or not when you first move them out to the sun. Adaptation to a new environment takes time to say the least.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, freakazoid said:Posting Rules
2) Please be friendly and supportive (no insults).
but then there's this....
6) Provide a valid and accurate climate, or a location from which climate can be deduced.
which is kinda related to this "discussion" in a convoluted and punlike, interesting, amusing way
No two ways about it, there simply isn't a lot of posting of factual information as we are seeing many resources are simply one persons opinion.
1880 -0.19 -0.11
1881 -0.1 -0.14
1882 -0.1 -0.17
1883 -0.19 -0.21
1884 -0.28 -0.24
1885 -0.31 -0.26
1886 -0.32 -0.27
1887 -0.35 -0.27
1888 -0.18 -0.27
1889 -0.11 -0.26
1890 -0.37 -0.26
1891 -0.24 -0.27
1892 -0.27 -0.27
1893 -0.32 -0.27
1894 -0.32 -0.24
1895 -0.22 -0.23
1896 -0.11 -0.21
1897 -0.12 -0.19
1898 -0.28 -0.17
1899 -0.18 -0.18
1900 -0.09 -0.21
1901 -0.15 -0.24
1902 -0.3 -0.27
1903 -0.39 -0.3
1904 -0.49 -0.32
1905 -0.28 -0.35
1906 -0.23 -0.37
1907 -0.4 -0.38
1908 -0.44 -0.4
1909 -0.48 -0.41
1910 -0.44 -0.41
1911 -0.43 -0.39
1912 -0.36 -0.35
1913 -0.35 -0.32
1914 -0.16 -0.3
1915 -0.12 -0.29
1916 -0.33 -0.28
1917 -0.43 -0.28
1918 -0.28 -0.28
1919 -0.27 -0.28
1920 -0.25 -0.26
1921 -0.17 -0.25
1922 -0.27 -0.24
1923 -0.24 -0.22
1924 -0.25 -0.21
1925 -0.21 -0.21
1926 -0.09 -0.2
1927 -0.2 -0.2
1928 -0.19 -0.19
1929 -0.35 -0.18
1930 -0.15 -0.19
1931 -0.1 -0.19
1932 -0.17 -0.18
1933 -0.3 -0.18
1934 -0.14 -0.17
1935 -0.21 -0.15
1936 -0.16 -0.12
1937 -0.04 -0.08
1938 -0.03 -0.03
1939 -0.03 0.01
1940 0.11 0.05
1941 0.18 0.08
1942 0.05 0.09
1943 0.07 0.09
1944 0.21 0.07
1945 0.09 0.03
1946 -0.07 0
1947 -0.04 -0.04
1948 -0.11 -0.07
1949 -0.11 -0.09
1950 -0.19 -0.08
1951 -0.07 -0.08
1952 0.01 -0.08
1953 0.07 -0.08
1954 -0.15 -0.07
1955 -0.14 -0.06
1956 -0.2 -0.05
1957 0.04 -0.04
1958 0.07 -0.01
1959 0.03 0.02
1960 -0.02 0.03
1961 0.06 0.02
1962 0.04 0
1963 0.07 -0.02
1964 -0.2 -0.03
1965 -0.1 -0.04
1966 -0.05 -0.05
1967 -0.02 -0.04
1968 -0.07 -0.03
1969 0.07 -0.01
1970 0.03 0
1971 -0.09 0
1972 0.01 0
1973 0.16 -0.01
1974 -0.08 0
1975 -0.02 0.01
1976 -0.11 0.03
1977 0.17 0.07
1978 0.06 0.12
1979 0.16 0.16
1980 0.27 0.19
1981 0.33 0.21
1982 0.13 0.22
1983 0.31 0.21
1984 0.16 0.21
1985 0.12 0.23
1986 0.18 0.25
1987 0.33 0.28
1988 0.41 0.31
1989 0.28 0.34
1990 0.44 0.34
1991 0.41 0.33
1992 0.22 0.33
1993 0.24 0.33
1994 0.31 0.34
1995 0.44 0.37
1996 0.33 0.4
1997 0.47 0.43
1998 0.62 0.45
1999 0.4 0.48
2000 0.4 0.5
2001 0.54 0.52
2002 0.62 0.55
2003 0.61 0.58
2004 0.53 0.6
2005 0.67 0.61
2006 0.62 0.61
2007 0.64 0.61
2008 0.52 0.62
2009 0.63 0.62
2010 0.7 0.62
2011 0.57 0.63
2012 0.61 0.67
2013 0.64 0.71
2014 0.73 0.77
2015 0.86 0.83
2016 0.99 0.89
2017 0.9 0.95
-
1
-
-
Seriously though, does it hurt pretending to be that slow or does it really just come naturally to you?
-
17 hours ago, DualWieldRake said:Well it's not really secret anymore now is it?
97% concensus of man made global warming, yet the climate is cooling
Seems all the evidence is to the contrary. Of course, I think you must be much more intelligent than that guys over at NASA and the many other scientific groups over the world.
-
24 minutes ago, DualWieldRake said:Complete and utter bs (it's actually 0,3%)
The amount of effort you put into perpetuating these false claims are a clear flag you are an agent
I simply believe in providing factual information, but if you want to believe I'm a secret agent man... then go right ahead my friend. The amount of effort you don't put into providing proofs or evidence for your claims leads me to conclude you are perhaps just trolling. Suffice it to say, I'd like to believe you don't actually believe the nonsense spewing forth from your lips, but I may never know that for certain.
-
-
20 hours ago, DualWieldRake said:Where did i say science is bs?
I'm saying the links you posted are all bs though, and they definately aren't science
paid government shill much?
See your below posts. Bottom line, some people will probably continue to believe that the Earth is flat even if you take them into outer space and fly them around the globe. I'm hoping your not one of those people, but I would not be surprised....
On 4/1/2018 at 3:30 PM, DualWieldRake said:it's popular science, aka bullshit to get ad revenue
It's not real, no atmosphere is leaking by definition
Particles leaving earth, sure, atmosphere leaking...never, impossible.
The retarded part is when they continue to make statements about the possibility of running out
Funny how religion must be all sorts of wrong yet this one is the truth cause it's what you hear most people say
When you refer to science that has a 97% consensus as being bs... I have to question your understanding of science as you appear to be either smarter than 97% of the scientists out there or lost in a world of confirmation bias. My money is on confirmation bias, but I'm open to other possibilities as well.
On 4/1/2018 at 3:53 PM, DualWieldRake said:Also acidification....bs
The chart you see says what? a squiggly line going up, omg we are going to die.
Lines go up and lines go down, but it's the alarmist who draws a negative conclusion
Again, the overall scientific consensus on the acidification of the ocean is that it is indeed real. We can actually measure the acidification of the ocean after all. Arguing against this one is about as lame as arguing against the fact that evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur.
-
20 hours ago, DualWieldRake said:Where did i say science is bs?
I'm saying the links you posted are all bs though, and they definately aren't science
paid government shill much?
Funny enough, our President Trump aka the Orange Anus, thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax. With that said, the majority of scientists all over the world are in agreement on the subject of Ocean Acidification and Global Warming. So... take that for what its worth.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
- American Association for the Advancement of Science"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
- American Chemical Society"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
- American Geophysical Union"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
- American Medical Association"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
- American Meteorological Society"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
- American Physical Society"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
- The Geological Society of America"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
- U.S. National Academy of Sciences"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
- U.S. Global Change Research Program"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13
“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14
OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
U.S. agencies
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
"
"Current Scientific Understanding
My comments on our state of knowledge about ocean acidification are based on a broad scientific consensus as represented in the current scientific literature and recent in scientific assessments compiled by the scientific community, in particular the United Kingdom Royal Society (Royal Society, 2005), the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) (Schuster et al., 2006), and a U.S. science workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Geological Survey (Kleypas et al., 2006).
The current rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, due to our intensive burning of fossil fuels for energy, is fundamentally changing the chemistry of the sea, pushing surface waters toward more acidic conditions. Greater acidity slows the growth or even dissolves ocean plant and animal shells built from calcium carbonate, the same mineral as in chalk and limestone. Acidification thus threatens a wide-range of marine organisms, from microscopic plankton and shellfish to massive coral reefs, as well as the food webs that depend upon these shell-forming species. Rising CO2 levels will also alter a host of other marine biological and geochemical processes, often in ways we do not yet understand. Ocean acidification is a critical issue for the 21st century impacting on the health of the ocean, the productivity of fisheries, and the conservation and preservation of unique marine environments such as coral reefs.
Over the last 250 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increased by nearly 40%, from pre-industrial levels of about 280 ppmv (parts per million volume) to nearly 384 ppmv in 2007 (Solomon et al. 2007). This rate of increase, driven by human fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is at least an order of magnitude faster than has occurred for millions of years, and the current concentration is higher than experienced on Earth for at least the last 800,000 years and likely the last several tens of millions of years (Doney and Schimel, 2007). About 1/3 of this excess, anthropogenic carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, where it forms carbonic acid and a series of dissociation products. The release of hydrogen ions from the breakdown of carbonic acid lowers the pH of seawater, shifting the normally somewhat alkaline seawater (surface pH about 8.2) toward more acidic conditions. As important for many organisms is the simultaneous reduction in carbonate ion concentration, which is used in the construction of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells. Ocean acidification is a predictable consequence of rising atmospheric CO2 and does not suffer from uncertainties associated with climate change forecasts. Absorption of anthropogenic CO2, reduced pH, and lower calcium carbonate saturation in surface waters, where the bulk of oceanic production occurs, are well-verified from models, hydrographic surveys and time series data (Feely et al 2004; Orr et al 2005).
Since preindustrial times, the average ocean surface water pH has fallen by about 0.1 units, from about 8.21 to 8.10 (Royal Society, 2005), and is expected to decrease a further 0.3-0.4 pH units (Orr et al., 2005) if atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach 800 ppmv (the projected end-of-century concentration according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business as usual emission scenario; Solomon et al. 2007). The most sensitive areas may be the subpolar North Pacific, the Southern Ocean, and along the Pacific continental shelf and margin where waters are already near or at corrosive levels for some carbonate shells (Feely et al., 2008). The problem of ocean acidification will be with us for a long time because it takes centuries to thousands of years for natural processes, primarily mixing into the deep-sea and increased dissolution of marine carbonate sediments, to remove excess carbon dioxide from the air.
Ocean acidification appears to have a significant, and often negative impact on many ocean plant and animal species. The magnitude and even the sign of the biological effects, however, differ from organism group to group and on the specific biological processes involved. Rising atmospheric CO2 alters seawater chemistry in several different ways---reducing pH, increasing the partial pressure of dissolved CO2 gas (pCO2), increasing total dissolved inorganic carbon, and reducing carbonate ion and the saturation state of calcium carbonate minerals. Because of the reduction in calcium carbonate saturation state, much of the research emphasis has been on shell-forming plants and animals that use calcium carbonate including some plankton (coccolithophorids, foramaniferia, and pteropods), benthic mollusks (clams, oysters and mussels), echinoderms (sea urchins), corals and coralline algae. Laboratory experiments show that ocean acidification and changes in ocean carbonate chemistry directly harms many of these calcifying species by reducing shell formation, slowing growth rates and hindering reproduction (Fabry et al., 2008a). The degree of sensitivity varies among species, however, and some organisms may show enhanced calcification at CO2 levels projected to occur over the 21st century (Iglesias-Rodríguez et al., 2008). However, calcification-CO2 response studies exist for a limited number of species in many calcifying groups, and currently, we lack sufficient understanding of calcification mechanisms to explain species-specific differences observed in manipulative experiments. "https://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=8916&tid=282&cid=43766
-
1
-
-
I think there is a clear misunderstanding here... "
Devolution, de-evolution, or backward evolution is the notion that species can revert to supposedly more primitive forms over time.
The concept is related to the idea that evolution has a purpose (teleology) and is progressive (orthogenesis), for example that feet might be better than hooves or lungs than gills. However, evolutionary biology makes no such assumptions, and natural selection shapes adaptations with no foreknowledge of any kind. It is possible for small changes such as in the frequency of a single gene to be reversed by chance or selection, but this is no different from the normal course of evolution."
Evolutionary biology does not make these assumptions...
-
1
-
-
Zelly's trich crosses, got pics? post here please
in Cacti & Succulents
Posted
scopulicola x huarazensis