Some Sort of Peruvanoid

[-YT-]

Thought i would post a few photos of my large What i believe to be Peruvanoid mother plant and pups in varies stages to see if i can get any closer to its Identity.

Heres a shot from a few months back before i removed the pups

Another shot

Three small pups coming from a midsection taken 5months ago

Shot of the same three pups (above), taken today

Shot taken today of small pup pushing its way in the wide world

Two more pups a bit more along

Repotted Pup - was taken of the main mother plant the 1st pic

Tip Cut i took when i first got the motherplant sometime ago

The Tip cut sitting next to a Short Spine Peruvians (right)

Well hope you enjoy the pics, Any Ideas??

[strangebrew]

The definition of fragrant is - pleasant, sweet-smelling.

I've only come across one that I would describe as that. The rest I've smelt have been all the same like you said and just remind me of datura - fairly forgettable, but maybe it's just me.

The description of pachanoi makes a specific note of the fragrance.

[M S Smith]

MS, all I've been really trying to say badly is from my limited perspective even though

Does that neccessarily mean we should discount plants that match the description significantly, both in prostrate growth habit and flower size?

The so-called "T. macrogonus" should have been quite readily seen as fitting into either T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus if flowers are the determining factor regarding species, which they are. So T. macrogonus actually seems to have been given its Latin name based upon outward appearence, something that shouldn't be relied on when cacti grown in collection can grow so different from plants in their natural ranges. "T. macrogonus" is nice to use generally, but the European plant should have been called simply a "Trichocereus sp" until it was also found in natural populations (edit: or in collection of known provenance), at which time the proper name could be applied to it, or one assigned if not yet described, and all this based upon flower characteristics if we wish to identify and describe plants properly.

But....many plants like "T. macrogonus" (T. peruvianus being one of them) seem to also have prostrate habits as well as indistinguishable flowers from "T. macrogonus." If this is true, which it is, then because T. peruvianus came before T. macrogonus the latter plant should have gotten the former name. And then if the flowers are truly the distinguishing feature regarding species the name T. peruvianus should also be pitched as its flowers would match the previously named T. pachanoi.

As for this plant, it is certainly a lot like the plant we call T. macrogonus in its outward morphology, but those flowers and fruit look like those plants we actually do call Cereus today.

~Michael~

Edited November 22, 2006 by M S Smith

[strangebrew]

But....many plants like "T. macrogonus" (T. peruvianus being one of them) seem to also have prostrate habits as well as indistinguishable flowers from "T. macrogonus." If this is true, which it is, then because T. peruvianus came before T. macrogonus the latter plant should have gotten the former name.

These are a couple of comments lifted of yours from the macrogonus thread at the nook, I'm confused.

I content that T. macrogonus is in fact the forerunner to the name T. peruvianus

I think they should, if my thinking regarding their synonymy is correct of course, and that since the name T. macrogonus preceded T. peruvianus it should be the one to survive.

I have been relying mainly on Backeberg's flower-size for macrogonus - 18cms. If there are peruvianus flowers that small that would definately change things.

As for this plant, it is certainly a lot like the plant we call T. macrogonus in its outward morphology, but those flowers and fruit look like those plants we actually do call Cereus today.

Yes I've seen that before but the ribs in that drawing could easily be taken to be Cereus as well. This was a due to a decision by Riccobono?

[M S Smith]

stangebrew said:

These are a couple of comments lifted of yours from the macrogonus thread at the nook, I'm confused.

"I content that T. macrogonus is in fact the forerunner to the name T. peruvianus"

"I think they should, if my thinking regarding their synonymy is correct of course, and that since the name T. macrogonus preceded T. peruvianus it should be the one to survive."

sb, I'm with you on that, it makes me confused too, but let me see if I can make any sense out of the developments of my own thinking.

Since “Cereus macrogonus” in fact precedes both T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus in its descriptions, the former 1850 and the latter two 1920, then I suppose T. macrogonus should be what the latter two in reality should be named if the flowers are botanically the same, but there was apparently no note of the floral characteristics regarding Cereus macrogonus (unless the above link illustration is correct, something that would prove it not to be a Trichocereus at all). So yes, in one way all should maybe be called T. macrogonus…if the flowers of Cereus macrogonus match those of the plant that was latter called T. macrogonus and considered synonymous.

If the Cereus macrogonus first described isn’t what was later called T. macrogonus, then the name T. macrogonus as applied to a Trichocereus (as though synonymous with the Cereus) would be improper. Therefore the “macrogonus” name as applied to a Trichocereus wouldn’t take precedence over T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus unless it was applied to a true Echinopsis/Trichocereus prior to 1920 and matched what latter was described as T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus.

There has been so much confusion regarding what plant T. macrogonus is (see Britton & Rose), and the fact that it was originally described from a collection plant with no insight into origins, maintaining the name, especially when still to this day there is a great degree of confusion and we have descriptions of latter plants of known origins, seem unwise even if generally accepted.

And let me also now make additional comments to correct the development in my views.

In Britton & Rose both T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus are listed as “sp. nov.,” new species and were described in 1920. I am not sure to what degree B&R looked at floral characteristics, but as many will attest, there is insignificant difference between them and therefore the first of these two described would probably be the one under which both should go. Since many T. macrogonus plants appear to also fall into this category they should then also be called the same if discounting the validity of the name T. macrogonus based upon it original description not being an Echinopsis/Trichocereus or due to lack of clarity from a botanical and nomenclature perspective.

I hope that help, but I fear I have only introduced more confusion.

~Michael~

[apothecary]

In Britton & Rose both T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus are listed as “sp. nov.,” new species and were described in 1920. I am not sure to what degree B&R looked at floral characteristics, but as many will attest, there is insignificant difference between them and therefore the first of these two described would probably be the one under which both should go. Since many T. macrogonus plants appear to also fall into this category they should then also be called the same if discounting the validity of the name T. macrogonus based upon it original description not being an Echinopsis/Trichocereus or due to lack of clarity from a botanical and nomenclature perspective.

I hope that help, but I fear I have only introduced more confusion.

Makes sense to me.