knuthianus?

[paradox]

alright, in a couple of previous threads titled "cactus heaven" an un-identified Trich was considered by a number of people to be a possible knuthianus. other people thought it a possible peruvianoid.

Ace & ferret posted some pics which looked almost identicle to the one that i posted. they all shared a number of characteristics which leaves no doubt in my mind that they are all the same species.

here is a pic of the plant:

so anyway the other day i received a cutting from an old cactus grower which was labeled T. knuthianus, which is this:

in my opinion the latter plant is clearly a different species from the former. the spines on the latter are MUCH more robust & there are many more spines present than there are on the former. the V notch on each plant, while in both it is very prominent giving the plant a very 'angular' appearance, is quite different in both plants. it is hard to tell from the photo's but seeing these two individuals in the flesh, while sharing a number of characteristics, they are just very different plants.

can the latter be positively ID'd as knuthianus?

if the latter is indeed Knuthianus & they are indeed 2 seperate species what in hell is the former?

Edited September 20, 2007 by Paradox

[M S Smith]

I haven't explored the T. knuthianus issue much, but here's what Backeberg says about it.

T. knuthianus Backbg. (1)

Bo. eventually tree-like, in age with a longer subterete trunk, to 3 m h.; branches to 10 cm 25, frosted, brilliant light bluish-green; Ri. c. 7, rounded, to 3cm br.; Rsp. 7; Csp. 1, to 10 cm lg., it and the Rsp. soon becoming concolorous whitish-grey although tipped yellowish at first; Ar. large, with much felt; Fl. large, white. —Peru (upper course of the Rio Maraflon).

As for the second picture, that is T. chiloensis. I actually got a T. chiloensis under the name "T. peruvianus v. knuthianus." Here's what it looks like.

Obviously yours is grown in an environment it is better suited to.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

ps - Backeberg mentions "transverse depressions" over the areole in regards to T. pachanoi, and a "V-shaped notch" over the areoles on T. peruvianus, and I would be curious as to why he wouldn't mention a similar trait in T. knuthianus if the plant he described was the same as that in it pictures above. But then again, such a mark is present on T. chilensis, but he doesn't mention it either.

Here's what T. knuthianus from Sacred Succulents looks like:

~Michael~

[paradox]

thanks michael, excellent info!

so the plot thickens. surprise surprise

yeah your first pic is certainly the same species as my second. very beautiful plants! I'll agree with you & go with T. chiloensis.

the knuthianus thing is certainly a mystery. michael, do you agree with the sacred succulents knuthianus ID? if not, have you formulated any opinions as to what it might otherwise be?

[strangebrew]

Very happy to be proved wrong but I am having a hard time seeing the bottom plant of Paradoxs being anything other than T.peruvianusKK242(cuzcoensis?) or maybe even a cuzcoensis.

I have exactly the same plant which consistently displays 6/7 ribs and 8 radials and 1 central and looking at the length of that cutting shouldn't chiloensis be displaying more ribs by now?

I can't see Michaels first photo really turning out to be a chiloensis either.

Edited September 21, 2007 by strangebrew

[M S Smith]

Damn, the thing just screams out T. chiloensis to me. Granted it clearly hasn't the number of ribs that you might see on some plants, particularly those in habitat, but the variation within the species shouldn't be discounted. I have quite a few collected photos of T. chilensis, and though many might appear quite different you can still see the common thread that runs through them. As for my own "T. peruvianus v. knuthianus" I have little doubt whatsoever it is T. chiloensis. As for its particular rib number it should be noted that it isn't particularly thick in diameter, and as we know, diameter has a lot to do with rib number.

~Michael~

[strangebrew]

This is worthy of the tag I think. Sorry Trucha!

EDIT: removed

If Paradoxs doesn't turn into something like this I'll eat it!...with his permission of course.

When it was younger.

Edited September 23, 2007 by strangebrew

[faslimy]

Michael that first picture you put up is one of your best I think. You just captured the plant in a light that is even better than real life.

[M S Smith]

Strangbrew, below is a picture in habitat of what I consider as representative of T. chilensis. I think this one probably has about 11 ribs. I'm not sure how many Paradox's has, but it looks to be around 8, maybe 9, which is more than appears on the plant which you suspect may be the same as his. I have "T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)" with 8 ribs, but most are 6 and 7 ribbed. Maybe this doesn't matter, but what might be worth consideration is some of the freak plants down under that might be various forms of hybrids.

The particularly stout and thick spines on Paradox's plant (and not just when immature) is one of the things that make me lean towards T. chiloensis; these I think more in line with the habitat photo and the plant in my photo than they are to yours. I would really be curous about the color of the new spines on Paradox's plant and if they match the yellow of my "T. pervianus v. knuthianus" (T. chiloensis?) or match your plant with the more reddish to horn colored spines.

Also, what do you think the plant in my photo is if not T. chiloensis? Whatever it is it is a beauty isn't it?

And faslimy, thanks for the compliments on the photo. I really pay attention to lighting and background when taking them.

~Michael~

[strangebrew]

Holy crap, you may be right. Now there's a first!

I am a total tard...I even counted 7 ribs. Rib count still seems low, I'd love to see a photo of the plant Paradox's cutting came from but there is that greyness to the areoles that generally kicks in quite quickly on a lot of chiloensis photos.

PS - Michael you've probably already seen it but there's a photo here that seems to display red spines.

http://www.cactuspro.com/articles/rcp_lund...ago_pichidangui

PPS - Paradox, if your plant disappears one day you'll know what happened.

Edited September 23, 2007 by strangebrew

[shruman]

I have a few plants that look like Paradox's 1st plant I got them mid way through last summer heres some pics

Putting on more spines at the tip

Lots of spines on the pup

Do u think she will lose some of her spine or was it just environmet or can u give me any idea as to whats going on?, any ideas what she is?.

[M S Smith]

Paradox's photos throws me off bit due to the areole spacing which is rather far apart for T. chilensis, and I am aware of the tenedency of the spines to quickly go grey, but if the plant in the photo had been dormant when the photo was taken that may just be a perspective sort of issue. I'm really not trying to "demand" that it is T. chiloensis, and I must admit it is a rather odd plant if it is T. chiloensis, but that wouldn't suprise me much as T. chiloensis is a very variable species and the plants in Australia seem to have a clear mind of their own.

You can tell his plant has at least 8 ribs as you can clearly see four of them. If you look at the rib angle of the two on the extremes of the right and left you can see that their angles are in such a manner that there would at least have to be 4 more ribs on the others side. I would even go so far as to say there is 9 ribs total.

~Michael~

[paradox]

thanks for the relplies everyone. i've only recently come across the two species i posted about & know next to nothing about them & the 'similar' species which have been mentioned. i'm just gonna keep an open mind about them.

i'm fairly certain however, that the first picture michael posted (whatever it may be) is the same species as my second pic.

soon i will post some better photos of the cutting & at some point i will be visiting the man i got it off again, so i will take a pic of the mother.

& to clarify, it has 8 ribs.

shruman ur plant is definitely the same species as my first pic! this one is getting me really interested, it is a very distinct plant, i definitely reckon it is totally separate from the peruvianoids & i keep getting more confused about what a true knuthianus looks like. doesn't anyone know what it is?

the plants i have seen also have a lot of spines on the young growth but seem to lose them fairly quickly, ending up with the distinctive 2 down-pointing, moderately thin, white spines.

the flesh of the plants i have encountered is not very bitter to the taste. how about yours, have you tried?

[shruman]

Bitter enough.

Foaf tried a tea but was dissapointed, it was probly he's method though, he has eaten dried in combo with other cactus & thinks it added something.

I thought ours were the same it was just the new spines that threw me.

Yeah knuthianus like most seems to be the more u look int the more questions u have.

Edited September 25, 2007 by shruman

[M S Smith]

Evil Genius, by a very kind and generous gift, has helped me out a bit on this issue regarding T. knuthianus.

Ritter lists two synonyms of T. knuthianus, these are T. tarmaensis (Rauh & Backeberg) and "Azureocereus?" deflexispinus (quotes and question mark being Ritter's own).

The black and white photo at the end of this post is T. tarmaensis in Backeberg's Die Cactaceae, while my own photo immediately below is of T. tarmaensis as available in the States.

These two plants are quite near identical and so maybe it is that the real T. knuthianus is the same as the plant in the US sold as T. tarmaensis. Interestingly enough if you look at my plant you can see that it is particularly blue in color, almost easy enough to be mistaken for an Azureocereus.

Maybe kt will stick his head back in and say a thing or two.

~Michael~

[paradox]

here are a couple of new cuttings from the same plant, i'm definitely leaning towards T. chiloensis in regards to ID.

as you can see these cuttings have 10 ribs, one of them had 11 but threw one.

what do you make of these:

& another cut:

the T. chiloensis pic from britten & roses Cactaceae appears to have at least 14 ribs, maybe 15-16? as follows:

i assume this^^^ image is of a culumn growing on a (perhaps very) large wild plant. the plant which i obtained my cuttings from stands about 2m tall with perhaps 7 or so columns, therefore, as others mentioned it would be expected that my cuttings would be of a smaller girth, with a lower rib count than large wild plants.

i don't know but i'm sticking with chiloensis at this stage

thoughts?

[M S Smith]

T. chiloensis can apparently vary quite a bit. Compare these Chilean plants from the Reserva Nacional Rio los Cipreses (left) and the Yerba Loca Nature Preserve (right).

~Michael~

[paradox]

2x T chilensis from resselers site (without permission)

T.chilensis form from Punitiqui:

Edited February 7, 2008 by Paradox

[Teotzlcoatl]

Smith, your T. tarmaensis looks like a T. peruvianus more than all these other cacti...

I like it.

Can you tell me anything esle about T. tarmaensis?