What are these?

[M S Smith]

Take a guess or multiple guesses, but do so without referring to any of my past photos. Just go off what you think you know from the past and from the plant or plants in your collection. kt, it really is your opinion on this I want more than any others. I think you will find this particularly fun, cause it has a really interesting ending that I'll get to.

~Michael~

[trucha]

Three things that I can say with some certainty:

1) They are beautiful.

2) They were grown under really nice conditions, probably in a greenhouse. Which is an easy guess since it looks like it is probably your gorgeous plant collection in the background.

3) They are sterile tip cuttings from plants with variable morphology so it is futile to attempt identification.

If I saw more examples of each, flower buds or flowers and their fruit I would be happy to guess but based on what I HAVE learned over the years a person can write names on the sides of a dice and be about as accurate as identifying plants based on sterile vegetative morphology.

There are a few exceptions that are distinctive (like many bridgesii and some santaensis) but this particular sub area of the trichs is really is a crap shoot if based on tips. It would not surprise me if all were the same thing or if all were different things.

I'l spend some time looking at them and let you know if I get any hits though since I really do want to play.

Thanks for posting those!

[shruman]

Pachanoi?

Something tells me its gonna have something to do with the macrogonus complex though.

[trucha]

I've seen similar things grow from Knize originating pachanoi seeds whether through JLH, WOH or SS. SS grew out some really nice blue Matucana peruvianus looking things from both pachanoi seed from Knize and from KK919 bridgesii seeds from Knize. You have to love him though. He really does put out some great plants.

[Ace]

I'd label them all T. peruvianus, though I am still new to peruvs and macros, so it could be a macro? I know michael has a pretty stron opinion on the 'real' pachanoi's having this sort of spination, but I like to think of pachs as having much shorter spines (and usually a little less bluing). Either way, like Trucha said - they are damn nice!

[Osprey]

My best guess is T.pachanoi seed from mesa garden.

I've had some come out similar to that.

[M S Smith]

Certainly beautiful, but not grown in a greenhouse. I have a 4x4x5 Gardeners Greenhouse, but it only has smaller plants and tender plants. All these ones are out in the yard and uncovered for their 5 month growing season (actually late April/early May to late Sept./early Oct.). If I'm lucky and the temps are good I can have them out just a few weeks more, but I play it really safe. They get tons of rain as the city I live in gets an inch or two less precipitation per year than Seattle, but actually gets a good deal more rain in the active growing season than Seattle which gets most of their precipitation in Nov. through March. I get more spring through fall precipitation.

I'll continue to see what guesses make come up, but I'll give a hint, there are no plants popularly considered T. pachanoi or labeled T. pachanoi in the bunch, and the plants may contain recognized "cultivar" names and/or numbers.

Osprey, want a Sacred Succulents T. glaucus in your package? How about the kt plant that used to be called "T. peruvianus, Standard," but which is in fact a form more akin to T. bridgesii? Give them a few more days to callous and I'll get them out with some others I've promised. Just think, the longer I delay your package the guiltier I feel and therefore the more I want to shove in the box to make it up. Pretty soon you will be wishing I wait until next spring.

~Michael~

[Osprey]

Michael,

I would really LOVE to get a cut of the standard plant!

I've been gazing longingly at it in Trouts book wondering how on earth I could get a cutting of that beauty.

What treasures you must have squirelled away in your collection!

did i mention that I'd like a cut of the standard plant?

Is the plant in your pictures luther burbank?(totally wild guess)

Edited August 23, 2007 by Osprey

[faslimy]

Promise me you will grow that T. glaucus to flower and produce some crosses, then send some seed down south! such a fantastic plant.

As for M S Smith plants, well, I would call them T macrogonus... but thats obvious isn't it?

[M S Smith]

Alrighty then, Osprey, you got the closest with a guess. But only one is the Luther Burbank. Anyone have an idea which? If one is the Luther Burbank and they all look quite identical (don't they?) then what does that mean?

Here's another hint, none of them bear the same name. There are five different tags. (You guys are going to be dumbfounded even more when I give the names.)

Faslimy, I really like the T. glaucus plant. It is just a beauty. Here's the plant that got to tall and fell over. The other limb got support from a fellow cactus.

~Michael~

[chilli]

Going by those photos, if they were in my collection I would probably just consider them all to be Macrogonus.

I really want to hear what they are tagged as though... when will the winners of this game be announced and is there at least a booby prize?

[Osprey]

I think I've got one............................RS0004?

[strangebrew]

Why do people think these should be called macrogonus?

If I had to pick one that was more odd than the others I'd say 3, then 5 but it's all very intriguing I'll give you that and I await with bated breath for the conclusion.

[Ace]

Why do people think these should be called macrogonus?

I am still very new to the peruvianus/macrogonus world, but from what I've read, they are very similar (and thats just what I would be inclined to label these plants with). Do you think otherwise Strangebrew? If so, what species would you think?

[chilli]

Why do people think these should be called macrogonus?

I don't think they should be, it's just what I, in my very limited knowledge would probably call them for want of a better description.

Actually, the spines on all of them are longer and fatter than the spines on any of the things in my collection I call Macrogonus except for one and funnily enough they look closer to a couple of slightly anomalous "KK242" cacti I have.

[strangebrew]

Actually, the spines on all of them are longer and fatter than the spines on any of the things in my collection I call Macrogonus except for one and funnily enough they look closer to a couple of slightly anomalous "KK242" cacti I have

Thanks man, it'd just be nice to know why people think a plant is or may be so and so and then in the process we may all learn something.

Edited August 24, 2007 by strangebrew

[M S Smith]

Osprey's right on another one. And one is said to be T. macrogonus.

#1) RS0004 (DSC01672)

#2) SS01 (DSC01673)

#3) Luther Burbank (DSC01674)

#4) T. peruvianus "Maldonado" - said to be the "True" T. peruvianus (DSC01675)

#5) T. macrogonus from Osprey (DSC01676)

What I would really like to see is others post pictures of these plants, particularly the first three, so that we can see what they look like when grown elsewhere, and if there may be an argument that they are all the same plant. I would say they were the same species, but I am interested in whether they could even be the same clone. I am convinced #4 and #5 are the same clone.

~Michael~

Edited August 24, 2007 by M S Smith

[chilli]

Thanks man, it'd just be nice to know why people think a plant is or may be so and so and then in the process we may all learn something.

Yep, good point... I had to actually think about it after you asked, because I usually just compare my cacti and others to images in my mind collated from looking at picture's of other people's cacti, so its sort of based on a kind of intuition for me rather than actual knowledge

[strangebrew]

Is there any justification in calling a plant that has numerous yellow spines macrogonus?

Hehe...Just askin!

[chilli]

Is there any justification in calling a plant that has numerous yellow spines macrogonus?

Hehe...Just askin!

Well that's the thing, I don't actually know... but I do have one cactus that looks like this with numerous yellow spines that I have been calling Macrogonus... but that is why I said "if it was in my collection, I would probably call it a..." This is also why when I thought about it and compared my "Macrogonus" to my definite Macrognous' I wasn't so sure after all.

So maybe this one I have is actually a Peruvianus which would be neat, because I didn't think I had one yet!

I know this is probably not why you said it, and is almost criminally OT, but does anyone actually think I am Warrioe-Sage? (I have seriously been asked if I am before)

[trucha]

Thanks for showing those Michael.

This nicely illustrates the perils if not folly of trying to assign IDs to young plants or making assessments based on anything but flowers and flowering sized plants.

I can happily post adult form pictures of all but the Osprey piece. If I'm not mistaken wasn't the Maldonado plant from the Huntington? If so no problem with images of it but if it was sourced someplace else I might not have it.

Right now I'm focusing on labelling the images I've been taking the last few days but it will be increasingly fun to get involved in posts again. I may try one more day of photo shooting but I am getting quite fried of getting on the road before 6Am.

The standard appears intermediate between peruvianus and bridgesii when grown to an adult size. It may be a hybrid but like so many of these plants encountered without labels the only real conclusion is "We don't know."

[trucha]

Your wish is granted Michael, sorry to take so long!

This is a great example of why older plants and flowers should be used to study synonymity rather than young vegetative growth

While I have little problem thinking everything from pachanoi and peruvianus to bridgesii and macrogonus are probably all within one species, I would suggest these are not clones.

#1) RS0004

From Kakster of course - originating in the Carlyle collection

I am trying to organize a shot of a larger plant and will post that when I do.

#2) SS01

This tip is around 5 or so inches

#3) Luther Burbank

This tip was cut and is now lying on its side healing. It is thought it originally came from Cuzco (Quisco is what Burbank's records said)

#4) T. peruvianus "Maldonado" - said to be the "True" T. peruvianus [[is that like the one "true" faith?]

This is from the Huntington's large sprawling plant shown growing in the sun and in the ground. If I am not mistaken isn't that where Maldonado nicked a cutting?

They have lost their accession data but John Trager's memory thinks Harry Hohnson brought this to them back in the 1950s.

[spunwhirllin]

Beautiful photos M.S.,as always.

Heres a few pictures for observable regional differences.

RS0004 and Osprey's mac(solaritea)

[spunwhirllin]

Heres a few more clones that are surely making the rounds.

242 short spine.

JBT10 pup,Oroyo Peru.

T. peruvianus var.Tarma,which is most certainly a macrogonus,by my definition.

Also,one to take a guess at.

[trucha]

When you say by your definitiion of macrogonus, could you define what you mean? Definitions only have meaning when they get defined.

That last one is an easy one.

The RSfat4 is another plant from Carlyle's collection. Carlyle only collected what he thought was macrogonus so Kakster has sold it as a macrogonus.

Kakster has no idea why Carlyle got obsessed with these particular plants; he was not a cactus collector or a botanist just a freak for plants that look like those. (Carlyle seems to be a bit of a nut case from all other accounts that Kakster has told me.)

peruvianus v. tarma is another Knize plant that appears to lack a description and what has been grown from Knize seeds exists in several divergent forms. Most of what I've seen have stouter spines than the beautiful plant shown but I don't doubt your name assignment.

Knize seems like a bit of a nut case himself but I sure do love his assorted plants.

While on the subject of variable plants within a common theme, here are some more:

new growth on the same Luther Burbank plant for which I showed an older tip above

uyupampensis (started from a cutting obtained from Monaco who got theirs as live material from Backeberg. Backeberg named and described this plant so it is reasonable to think it is correctly identified.)

The mother plant is now dead due to some truly idiotic garden policies but that is a divergent story

tarmaensis (on a huge plant that was started from cuttings that were wild collected from Tarma)

Edited September 5, 2007 by trucha

[spunwhirllin]

Hi Trucha,

Outstanding photos,the uyupampensis is a beauty.

The KK uyu's I have are still only 8'' tall,and really dont look like the one pictured,they appear to be cuzcoensis at this stage.

As far as defining macrogonus,I use the following.

6 + ribs,usually in the range of 8.

Spines that maintain a constant diameter,and reach a length of an inch,minimum.

Have red to black spine tips,(SUN EXPOSURE)that turn a light brown after a season.

One to two centrals,multiple radial spines,8 or so.

Slight curvature of the radials and/or centrals.

Chevrons above the areole are very slight to non-existent.

I would say heavy glaucous skin,but that truly isn't the case.

Above all else I apply familiarity and intuition,not very scientific,but......

As for peruvianus,I define these by simple deduction.