Trichocereus argentinensis

[spunwhirllin]

I just recieved this cutting,any information on this species?

It was collected by Merritt Dunlap and put into Cereus by him.Then Mr. Ressler redescribed it as Trichocereus.Thats about all I know about this plant.

Its seems to be an intermidiate,perhaps hybidized with one of the giant trichs of argentina.

Very odd.

Much appreciated.

[Teotzlcoatl]

Hmm, interesting...

Almost looks like the P.C. San Pedro with it's complete lack of notchs.

[M S Smith]

Go to Webshots.com and search "argentinensis" for a few more shots from Bob Ressler. This one is a beauty!

I don't have this particular plant, but I would think it lies somewhere on the T. pachanoi spectrum. I'd love to get it, but I really don't need to add plants at this time...more like get rid of a bunch.

~Michael~

[spunwhirllin]

Actually I got it directly from Bob Ressler,it was his beautiful photos of this plant that hooked me.

I really don't see any attributes that would place this plant within the pachanoi clan.

I'm pretty much out of space for these plants as well,one must discriminate.

[Evil Genius]

Hi Spun, cool cutting! I love it! It´s difficult to ID like any other unclear hybrid. If i´d get this one without any label, i´d probably put it somewhere close to Macrogonus though the spines dont really match. bye Eg

[spunwhirllin]

It doesn't really match anything I have for comparison.

Epidermis is very much like that of Scopulicola.Areoles are very similar to those of the trichocereus giants(pasacana,terscheckii)in appearence,though smaller.

One inch spines are arranged in a downward radial of 5,with sporadic centrals,if at all.

Hard to place.

Thanks.

I know its hard to really grasp the nature of a cutting from a photo,atleast my photos.

[Teotzlcoatl]

Holy shit there is the exact plant your cutting came from!!!

Look!

Edited February 6, 2008 by Teotz'

[bit]

Fairly certain this is argentensis too (second from left in bottom pic)

[trucha]

Cereus argentinensis is actually a described Cereus so its not clear why this plant got that name. Its probably more correct to say it was mislabelled as this rather than it was named as this.

So far as I know this one was never described - Bob just renamed it,

Ressler told me it was wild collected many years ago. Roberto Kiesling expressed great skepticism that it was collected in Argentina. Who knows?

The image at

http://trout.yage.net/sc/T_argentinensis.html

is also from a cutting taken from Ressler's plant.

Ressler told me it got to 10 inches in diameter.

Something I've noticed about the really fat pachanoi and peruvianoids is at least some of these seem to get fattest and grow most vigorously when they get more dappled light than direct sun or if they are protected from the hottest sun of the day.

A couple are noted as being collected under trees in the wild.

It seems counterintuitive but its worth commenting on.

Edited February 17, 2008 by trucha

[spunwhirllin]

Bit,

You've got some spectacular plants,congrats.What species is that on the far left in the lower photo?

Thanks Trucha.

I've noticed that some plants really dislike full sun as well.The CCC peruvianus displayed its dislike for a few seasons,but just this last year it's growth was outstanding.

Might just be an acclimation period,or it just gave in to my stubborness.

Mr. Ressler did make the comment that Trichs didn't do well in the Arizona sun.You can see in some of his photos that his trichs display tip pups,I'd assume this is because the sun burns up the apical meristem resulting in a terminal point.

I also recieved one of Dunlaps T. tulhuayecensis,and this displays the burnt tip.

[Undergrounder]

Holy shit there is the exact plant your cutting came from!!!

Look!

Wow that IS weird. Did you just find that photo randomly?

[shruman]

Reminds me of the cobodensis (spiny scop), nice plant I can see how it got the cereus designation.

Ur's looks like a peru/equador type pach to me bit, I've got one just like that.

[trucha]

Lots of these sorts do great if they grow through nurse plants into more sun. Fat bases mean the best growth usually.

If a person compares the three Echinopsis forbesii specimens at the Huntington they can see how dramatic the differences can be between cacti growing under a nurse plant or growing in full sun.

My guess is the sun in Arizona is not as much the problem as is high day time and nighttime temperatures. CAM requires the stomata be able to open at night and that is temperature dependent. Some cacti tolerate more heat than others but the pachanoi/peruvianus sorts like it a bit milder.

I experienced the same thing in Texas where nighttime lows sometimes were in the upper 80s when our highs were around 110 or higher.

Many people do not realize that the regions of the Andes with these sorts of trich are generally not blistering hot places or a bitterly cold place like the US desert SW often is (on both counts).

The difference in how these sort of trichs like living in the Bay Area of California compared to central Texas is like comparing day to night.

I might iterate this plant was never described by anyone.

No clue how this came to be labelled as it was.

Cereus argentinensis has actually been described (I think this was one of Ritter's proposals) but that is really a Cereus species and something completely different from this. It is now lumped into Cereus stenogonus.

I suspect that Dunlop had simply mislabelled it and Ressler did not realize that (or the fact that Cereus argentinensis was a real plant unrelated to this one) when he changed its labelling to a Trichocereus. Based on what Bob has said to me on this he clearly thinks MD wild collected it and named it.

Ressler did something similar with his name Trichocereus collosus that he created out of a plant very clearly mislabelled as Cereus collosus (a UC misspelling of Cereus colosseus)

It is clear that the plant generating that sign at UC is now dead since this is clearly stated to be the case in their records (ie a Cereus species that was grown by UC from Ritter seed in th early 1960s used to be there but all three have died). What is growing there by that sign is something different. For several reasons I suspect it to be a spontaneous hybrid but we willl likely never know for sure.

Edited February 24, 2008 by trucha

[M S Smith]

Since kt brings up the T. colosus here is a picture of the seed grown T. colusus sent to me by Ressler. I was given a small patch of a number of seedlings thankfully, so the genetics should be a little variable, but it is nice to know that I have something like the plant that UC no longer does. I suspect it a hybrid though as it really has taken on the look of the "PC" T. pachanoi. I don't have the best environment for growing cactus so I've only been able to share it sparingly over the years.

~Michael~

[Teotzlcoatl]

Wow that IS weird. Did you just find that photo randomly?

Yup.

I might iterate this plant was never described by anyone.

No clue how this came to be labelled as it was.

Cereus argentinensis has actually been described (I think this was one of Ritter's proposals) but that is really a Cereus species and something completely different from this. It is now lumped into Cereus stenogonus.

I suspect that Dunlop had simply mislabelled it and Ressler did not realize that (or the fact that Cereus argentinensis was a real plant unrelated to this one) when he changed its labelling to a Trichocereus. Based on what Bob has said to me on this he clearly thinks MD wild collected it and named it.

So it is likely that this plant should be called T. pachanoi? or T. peruvianus? With it's location of origin being Argentina? Perhaps we should call it T. pachanoi var. argentinensis

Bit's Cactus in post #8 is distinctly different from the OP's cactus...

Epidermis is very much like that of Scopulicola.Areoles are very similar to those of the trichocereus giants(pasacana,terscheckii)in appearence,though smaller.

This specimen is really interesting.... is anything know of it's activaty?

Edited February 26, 2008 by Teotz'

[spunwhirllin]

Nice plant M.S. ,perhaps we could swap some cuts later this year.I know you don't have the room,but hey,neither do I

Teotz',

One can tell by looking at the cutting and its attributes that it is of a different species than pach or peru,IME anyway.

In terms of activity,I have no clue.Alkaloidial activity isn't my primary focus when it comes to these plants,actually it's low on my list of priorities.Knowledge of the activity would be a nice side note,but.....

Edited February 27, 2008 by spunwhirllin

[Teotzlcoatl]

There's a page in "Trout's Notes on San Pedro" that discusses this...

I'll get back to y'all on what the page # is.

[trucha]

All that is really known about Ressler's argentinensis is that he got it from the collection of a dead collector and its origin was believed to be Argentina based on the name it had.

Since that name argentinensis is clearly a mislabel and not a real application of a name that does in fact apply to a Cereus it is really anyone's guess where this name actually came from.

Its a nice plant but it needs to be questioned as to whether it really came from Argentina.

"Unknown" is probably the most honest thing that anyone can say about its actual point of origin from the wild.

It really needs another name.

Collosus needs another name since it too is clearly the result of a mislabel.

[M S Smith]

Hell, the plant could have easily came from Argentina, but even if it had doesn't mean that it evolved there over tens of thousands of years or more. And can we even be certain that it has its "origin from the wild" and not from a cultivated homestead or garden somewhere? At its base the plant is probably a T. pachanoi, and if from Argentina at all was brought there from some other region at some prior time.

~Michael~

[mutant]

Very interesting thread. Nice to find so many cacti & succulents experts in one forum.

[mu!]

wats the definition of an expert again, "someone who knows more & more about less & less"

[Garbage]

Trichocereus is confusing,they grow however they please.

I even have one that started as eight ribs that grew into 6 ribs,what is it playing at?

Others started with a central and radials and then couldnt be bothered with radials no more,later on i expect them to bristle up a bit.

I have one from seed that looks to be making it's first flowers,other stems bought as large plants have had normal white ones in the past but maybe something will be different?

I would marvel if it had a bunch of red bloodshot eyes.

[trucha]

The only honest thing that can be said is we do not know where it came from or why it was mislabelled.

Bob's recollection was that it was a wild collection but this was apparently based on MD collecting from the wild many years ago.

Bob assumes it came from Argentina based on its name but since the name is that of another plant entirely that seems like a rather shaky basis for assigning a point of origin.

I don't think there are any cactus experts participating in this forum myself - we are all just a bunch of amateur cactus lovers.

The only Argentinean cactus expert (RK) who I've discussed this plant with insists it could not have come from Argentina. Who knows what reality is on this one.

[spunwhirllin]

I agree Trucha,however we all know this particular plant as it was named.I see no need to change the designation,eventhough it holds no validity in terms of its region of collection.We can assume it was wild collected,and possibly hails from Argentina.I doubt Dunlap just chose a country and named the plant as such.Like most mysteries we have but a few clues.

I don't feel dis-honest for retaining the name the plant came with,it's just how I received it,and I'll distribute it as such.

It is a beauty of a plant,I hope thats what really matters to most of us .

[trucha]

No dishonesty is suggested.

I would though suggest the name was not chosen but rather was a simple instance of mislabelling as is far from uncommon in any old and large cactus collection. Probably rather like some Lima T. pachanoi getting called Opuntia cylindrica in the 40s.

Bob apparently constructed the picture by inferences based on the name after its owner's death rather than information gleaned directly from him while alive.

The name should be preserved for sake of clone tracking but it would be better labelled as a cv. rather than a sp.

Ideally it might read something like Trichocereus cv. argentinensis sensu Ressler

[M S Smith]

I eventually got my very own "T. argentinensis"...

Looks like it's just a particularly awesome T. peruvianus to me. Love it!

~Michael~