Suspected T.smirzianus

[Conan Troutman]

Suspected T.smirzianus? short and thick, flowers were open during a rather hot day...if that helps, Cheers!

[M S Smith]

I'm always careful about asigning any sort of specific species name to these sorts of Echinopisis due to their being probably the most widely crossed, propagated and commercialized forms. Read about the "Paramount" and "Schick" hybrids here, and be sure to see all the pretty pictures.

I would just refer to such a plant as yours as Echinopsis "Grandiflorus" - an Echinopsis with a "grand" flower.

Below is a T. smirzianus growing in northern Argentina. Most of the online photos are misidentified, but this one don't seem to be from my understanding. The species has white flowers. What color are yours?

~Michael~

Edited November 15, 2007 by M S Smith

[Conan Troutman]

Big and white, with yellow centre , defiantly trich flower, I first thought it was a crappy golden torch but noticed spines arent any wear near as long as spach and is much shorter and fatter and flowering at very small height, with blooms open during 25c+ day...if that helps?

[M S Smith]

Well I certainly wouldn't have put it in with T. spachianus, but I'm not quite willing to stick it into T. smirzianus so quickly when the chances of getting one of the hybrids is much greater than getting the true species. Where is the plant from? A botanical garden or a shopping mart?

~Michael~

[PD.]

My guess is T. schickendantzii or something close to, could be hybrid. ill get a pick of my potted up schicky tomoro for comparison CT.

[PD.]

OK, its tomoro,

not the best shots as i dont like usin the flash. mite get some more later in natural light.

[Conan Troutman]

Was no longer under impression the it was spach..

Bingo cheers Passive, they look like brothers!

[PD.]

LOL, yeh i was thinkin the same thing after i posted tha pics CT.

[Fenris]

If only it was blue then it could be called T. smurfianus

[trucha]

Watch the fruit. It will get big and fat and pink if the ID is right. Most I have seen have a bit different spination but the body form and ribbing are not untypical.

The name should be spelled smrzianus (now smrziana) not smirzianus.

Named after someone named Smrz. The only proper name I know of with no vowels.

[Micromegas]

This is a very common plant in South Oz, occuring in just about every large cacti patch i have stumbled upon... forming clumps of two metres or more very fat and low/clumping, short spines, large white flowers, my fruits have been green. Prolific flowerer, fast and hardy to grow. Mine have thrown out 10-20 pups each this growing season, at least. Def. not a spach. Adelaide bot. gardens has it labelled as Trichocereus Tephracanthus but that's had to say for accuracy. Think there might be a rarer pink/red flowering variety around slightly different to T.huasca in form. Overall quite a pretty plant to have in the garden....

Now I'm not sure if either of these are T.smirzianus but it's an interesting comparison...

Edited January 11, 2008 by Micromegas

[Conan Troutman]

This is a very common plant in South Oz, occuring in just about every large cacti patch i have stumbled upon... forming clumps of two metres or more very fat and low/clumping, short spines, large white flowers, my fruits have been green. Prolific flowerer, fast and hardy to grow. Mine have thrown out 10-20 pups each this growing season, at least. Def. not a spach. Adelaide bot. gardens has it labelled as Trichocereus Tephracanthus but that's had to say for accuracy. Think there might be a rarer pink/red flowering variety around slightly different to T.huasca in form. Overall quite a pretty plant to have in the garden....

Now I'm not sure if either of these are T.smirzianus but it's an interesting comparison...

not sure about first (looks way spiney) but 2nd pic is T.schickendantzii

[trucha]

One problem is what Michael already commented on and that is huge numbers of hybrids look much like this.

Fruit remaining green might suggest shaferi but I would expect it to be taller.

[PD.]

Echinopsis schickendantzii, Synonym: Trichocereus volcanensis, Trichocereus schickendantzii, Trichocereus manguinii, Echinopsis manguinii, Trichocereus shaferi

[strangebrew]

Just because something is made synonymous doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a visible difference though.

[trucha]

Its actually even worse now since a disturbing number of combinations leave no one able to know why the merger was made or even who made it. Unless David Hunt is willing to talk with you.

Its a committee process now (the ICSG) and despite once doing so they no longer vote but rather the task of deciding what is the same as other plants is left up to whoever is thought by David Hunt to know the most. The idea was that as a committee all of the members did not really have the expterise in all areas to be giving an expert opinion in some areas so better to leave it to the one who was the specialist. Perhaps sound on some levels but some of the combinations are baffling and there is no means to even know who to ask.

For instance the absorption of werdermannianus into terscheckii.

Several months ago when I got the chance I went through every page of every issue of the ICSG's journal and not only found no discussion of this but an article discussing why they were different and how their range did not overlap (along with a distribution map of the known zones of populations).

There is just no way to deal with that other than to not take the declarations of synonymity too seriously unless a persn can understand what the proposed rationale is.

Presently absolutely nothing is required of a lumper other than to state or have someone else state that two things are the same.