hairy columnars & an echinopsis

[ferret]

Espotoa Cleisto Oreo? i dunno!

p.s. nice pink echinopsis.

[ferret]

pilo? cephalo? austrocephalocereus

p.s. for bonus points. T. macrogonus or peruvianus? what is the difference?

these cuts are up on swapnsell

thanks folks

Edited June 27, 2007 by ferret

[XipeTotec]

p.s. for bonus points. T. macrogonus or peruvianus? what is the difference?

there is alot of contention regarding that.... one on right is macro, if that is what u r asking?... one on left looks like san pedro, but I have been sold similar as peruvianus (by cactusland)

Edited June 27, 2007 by shroomytoonos

[ferret]

yeah thats why ive never given it much credence but ive got to start calling these fuckers something and may as well go with the mob mentality

[M S Smith]

Regarding the bonus, looking at the cut I bet those are the same plant...but I followed other clues to come to that conclusion.

As for differences between T.macrogonus and T. peruvianus I'l share something I wrote at The Nook where you apparently posted quite a nice assortment of photo:

i cant work out this macrogonus/peruvianus complex and hope you guys can help me out..

I don't think there really in much of a “real” difference in the "complex" itself, but rather what it is we want to refer to particular looking cactus as. Interestingly enough you can have your “T. peruvianus” that is grown hard in the Matucana habitat or such sunny places as southern California look like a “T. macrogonus” when grown in a more temperate environment, as your own plants, and mine, seem to show readily. So what is T. peruvianus and T. macrogonus, well the fact is in flower they, with little exception, would likely all show themselves to be the same species. And even the “true” T. pachanoi fall into this same “species.” But the thing is we all “see” differences in morphological growth habit and out of a desire to differentiate plants we want to give them their own “species” name, even though this is not at all probably botanically accurate.

The human species is full of variations from hair and eye color to bone structure and skin color, but in no case do we call them anything else but Homo sapiens. Technically all that many of us attempt to do is attempt to describe differences, and apply names, as means to differentiate the object of our discussion. Just as you can’t quite accurately stick Tiger Woods or others of mixed “color” as one or the other “race” you cannot also truly define many of the Trichocereus under a particular name when there has been such a similar cross-breeding due to human intervention that has spread these plants throughout the Andes. At one time, many millennia ago, there likely was a progenitor species, but with the movement of this original species through the Andes by man, and its evolutionary and genetic adaptation to it new environments, and then its continued movement and inter-breeding with other adaptations of the same species, we see that there really is no straight answer about what species is what. Is all we are left with is words to play with to best fit what it is that we want, and not what the plants themselves demand.

~Michael~

[Fenris]

The second one down with all the nice pink tubular flowers I think is a Cleistocactus strausii AKA Silver Torch.

[ferret]

The second one down with all the nice pink tubular flowers I think is a Cleistocactus strausii AKA Silver Torch.

yep youre probably right fenris cheers...

[ferret]

nice one michael, thats a nice clear summary of the way i see em too. i think i will just try to forget about the macrogonus in future due to its inadequate botanical status.. and refer to the group as peruviani. thats where all my confusion lies i reckon..