transDiMenTional Posted November 9, 2006 im just wondering what lances origins are. It is such a vigorous clone, growing fat very quickly and OMG that is one bitter cactus!!!! Any one have any experience with him? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incognito Posted November 10, 2006 i made some lance resin for this years mardi-gras, and found it kinda sedating!!! was a bit like poppies i found,, maybee i didnt have enough. or maybee its cos i was just uber tired. magnificent looking plant though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Happy Cadaver Posted November 10, 2006 It's a clone originally from Arizona Cactus (Aus). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
transDiMenTional Posted November 10, 2006 Thats interesting Jono! I wonder if it was the cactus or other circumstances Im thinking another bioassay is in order! I noticed that sabs discription of lance has changed from T.Corbodensis to T.sp also.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M S Smith Posted November 10, 2006 (edited) I noticed that sabs discription of lance has changed from T.Corbodensis to T.sp also.. This is only proper considering the fact that it probably got its name due to similarity to the "T. cordobensis" that I have in my collection, but which is likely just a longer spined form of T. scopulicola. T. cordobensis isn't a recognized name, but it is interesting to note that when I got my T. cordobensis the tag said “scopulicola complex, Argentina.” Presumably this means it came from Cordoba, Argentina (north central Argentina). Below is my T. cordobensis, originally from Horst at NMCR. Where he got it I don't know. ~Michael~ Edited November 10, 2006 by M S Smith Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M S Smith Posted November 10, 2006 Here is your standard T. scopulicola on the left with T. cordobensis on the right for comparison. ~Michael~ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted November 10, 2006 It's a clone originally from Arizona Cactus (Aus). This might be helpful if you actually knew what it meant. The numbers on our tags don't tell the full story. Arizona Cactus was a big cactus nursery in sydney's west which closed a few years ago. A lot of our early stock came from there. However, to understand the source of the cacti you need to understand how the business worked. A lot of their stock plants were in large pots or tubs or even just growing out the back or the front. This is the stuff everyone had access to and includes two or three of our lageniformis and a couple of peruvianus. About half the tunnels of the nursery were however leased to members of the cactus clubs and simply individual collectors. These collectors also brought in large amounts of material for propagation and sale via arizona or personally if they were in attendance. The place was kinda like a large trading post for cacti. This externally sourced material accounted for over half of their stock. That means some of the stuff only became available once in a blue moon, or maybe even just once, period. Lance was one of these. One of the collectors one day offered me a few pieces of this funky looking scop and I bought the whole lot. Because most of the people I met there were on first name basis only I decided to label all my stock sourced from that group with the same number as Arizona. So yeah, Lance has the same source number as all the other Arizona stock, but he was never actually grown there. Which is a good thing actually, cos Arizona closed soon after and all the stock was sold, removed or neglected to death, while Lance is likely to be growing happily as a massive plant in some collector's backyard. I bought lance as a scop, but changed it to cordobensis on MSS's advice. While the plant looks just like his, neither look anything like cordobensis, so I decided to simply call it E.sp. lance. I am pretty certain it is a scop though, so will probably rename him to scop fairly soon. The only thing that bothers me about the scop label is that all scops flower freely up here, but lance never does. Not sure if that is a reliable indicator though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Happy Cadaver Posted November 10, 2006 This might be helpful if you actually knew what it meant. The numbers on our tags don't tell the full story. Well i'm glad you cleared that one up big boss man, it's been haunting me, there wasn't much of a description on the cacti source list. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M S Smith Posted November 10, 2006 Well I'm not sure I necessarily advised changing the name to T. cordobensis, but rather simply noted the similarity of Lance to my own plant that came labeled as T. cordobensis. I hate to think that I have been the source of so much confusion so let me just blame it on Horst at NMCR. I would certainly agree that it is a variety or form of T. scopulicola, this regardless of its difficulty in blooming similarly to the standard T. scopulicola. ~Michael~ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted November 10, 2006 Well I'm not sure I necessarily advised changing the name to T. cordobensis Sorry, didn't mean to imply this was your fault in any way. I know this was merely mentioned in passing and I kinda latched onto that in the absence of any other ID making sense to me at the time. I guess that's why we have those strain names like 'Lance', so we can keep changing the botanical names Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teonanacatl Posted November 11, 2006 (edited) Instead of even trying to edit your guys posts i just deleted them. There will be no incrimination of others or abuse, and this goes for both parties. I edited this not torsten, rules are for everybody. Its obviously a personal thing so sort it out away from here, its depressing. Edited November 11, 2006 by teonanacatl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
