ID Please

[sharxx101]

Hi guys please check this pic out and tell me what you think.

http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp163/s...01/IMG_7153.jpg

Thanks in advance

[PD.]

Id go with T. knuthianus for sure. Spination, spine colour, notching as well as areole shape and size are all consistant with knuthianus. The "bumps" between areoles arent really that prominent on the new growth of smaller potted plants of this type I have found. Looks exactly like one of mine which was sourced at the same place you got this perhaps ;) Which would make it a def knuthianus. Looks very healthy and happy btw, nice plant .

[sharxx101]

Thanks PD

[Teotzlcoatl]

I don't see why it's not just a peruvianus?

[strangebrew]

I'm getting long spined KK242 peruvianus (cuscoensis?) vibes.

[ballzac]

I'm getting long spined KK242 peruvianus (cuscoensis?) vibes.

The spines are similar, but the overall form says to me genuine peruvian. Don't know much about knuthianus though, so would be inclined to trust PD on that pending further debate.

[PD.]

Here is a pic of knuthianus, you must however take into account this first pic is a small pup on a large plant with one less rib compared to sharxx. Spination is a lil morse sparse than that on sharxx cutting but you can see the shape and felt colour of areoles is the same grey colour with age and the same notches above the areoles. The second pic is low down on a stump i have here so the areoles and spines are much more weathered but gives you a better idea of the heavier spination you see in sharxx pic.(sorry bout quality of pic, phone is all i have to use atm)

[strangebrew]

Hmmm similar,

but I see no notches above the areoles on sharxx's photo.

EDIT: i.e. not attached to the areole.

Edited January 7, 2009 by strangebrew

[Teotzlcoatl]

T. knuthianus is basically just a form of T. peruvianus tho, right?

It's more like Trichocereus peruvianus forma. knuthianus, I'd say.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Teotz'

[Chiral]

Love that apex on Sharxx's one... thats really cool looking.

H.

[paradox]

Here is a pic of knuthianus, you must however take into account this first pic is a small pup on a large plant with one less rib compared to sharxx. Spination is a lil morse sparse than that on sharxx cutting but you can see the shape and felt colour of areoles is the same grey colour with age and the same notches above the areoles. The second pic is low down on a stump i have here so the areoles and spines are much more weathered but gives you a better idea of the heavier spination you see in sharxx pic.(sorry bout quality of pic, phone is all i have to use atm)

PD if that is the plant i think it is, theres a number of threads regarding it & the knuthianus ID for that one is a little shakey & i reckon sharxx101's plant is not the same species.

that plant in your pics PD intruiges me tho. i got hold of a cutting a while back & a number of people were thinking it was a knuthianus but also a number of people including (if i remeber correctly) trucha & ms smith said that it was most likely not knuthianus.

anyways sharxx's plant looks like an interesting one if it is some sort of peruvi.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Paradox

[paradox]

hmm just read that the pics of yours PD are from fields collection which was collected by ritter & still has the original labels...interesting

[Ace]

I'd definately agree with PD on this one.

Hmmm similar, but I see no notches above the areoles on sharxx's photo.

?? I must be seeing things cos they are clear as day to me. Would be a fair bit more obvious on a slightly different angle, granted.

I don't see why it's not just a peruvianus?

They are very similar (and probably closely related), but IME the main difference is in the bulges between areoles and slightly different spination. Peruvianus tends to have a mass of spines on each areole, even in very young areoles around the tip, whereas Cuzcoensis starts with just a few spines at the tip and with age the areoles develop a similar look (spine-wise) to peruvianus. These are just my observations and I have learned these thru threads like these

Nice looking cutting Sharxx

[shruman]

Still a knuthianus sharxx ;)

Yeah as PD says those big grey felted areoles are pretty unique to knuthianus also have a little brown in them espescialy around the spines when young.

The lumpy apearance & pronounced notching (I can see them strange 3rd areole down on the rib facing & 1st areole either side) are also giveaways. Spines are'nt quite as long as KK242/cuzco though they are very similiar spines & overall. I got mine labeled as macro & cuzco from the same guy as peru. I guess they found the descrip for the common ones & assigned name on spine length.

I think cuzco & this beast share a close relationship. Very similiar.

Only good for looks I'm afraid

[paradox]

after looking at the pic again i'd have to say i agree, sharxx's plant is the same as the plant in PD's pics. knuthianus?

is there pretty much a consensus that this plant is knuthianus? cause i've been wondering about this one for a long time.

[sharxx101]

Still a knuthianus sharxx ;)

Yeah as PD says those big grey felted areoles are pretty unique to knuthianus also have a little brown in them espescialy around the spines when young.

The lumpy apearance & pronounced notching (I can see them strange 3rd areole down on the rib facing & 1st areole either side) are also giveaways. Spines are'nt quite as long as KK242/cuzco though they are very similiar spines & overall. I got mine labeled as macro & cuzco from the same guy as peru. I guess they found the descrip for the common ones & assigned name on spine length.

I think cuzco & this beast share a close relationship. Very similiar.

Only good for looks I'm afraid

Thanks for all the info everyone.

Yeah Shruman, I keep getting cut of kathianus given to me as some people think they are peruvianus.

[M S Smith]

I've leaned towards the T. knuthianus of Australia being a variation of T. cuzcoensis myself. The Sacred Succulents T. knuthianus is clearly a variation of T. cuzcoensis in my opinion.

What is strange though is that T. knuthianus is said to come from the upper course of the Rio Marañón, a region which yields T. pallarensis and T. santaensis, and not T. cuzcoensis forms.

Think plants at Chavin de Huantar like this one:

Ort this one from the Parque Nacional Huascarán:

Until I see anything like the the Australian or Sacred Succulents T. knuthianus coming from the region of the Upper Marañón I'm going to be a little suspicious about the identification of these two plants.

Now here's a plant along the Inca Trail that reminds me a bit of the Australian T. knuthianus, and which I'd estimate was a T. cuzcoensis form (a species that probably has as much variability in it as we find in the T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus bunch).

~Michael~

PS - any alkaloid analysis of any form done on this Australian T. knuthianus?

Edited January 10, 2009 by M S Smith

[paradox]

PS - any alkaloid analysis of any form done on this Australian T. knuthianus?

intersting post michael. your third pic definitely bares a strong resemblance to the 'australian knuthianus'

lick test from a fairly mature specimen wasn't promising.

i seem to remember someone reporting a bioassay which didn't show any activity.

[strangebrew]

Yeah I think the Ozzy knuthianus ID is a bit dodgy as bumps only seem to be a cuscoensis trait.

[PD.]

Yeh all very interesting indeed, i wonder then, why if knuthianus is from an area that produces different plants altogether from the Au knuthianus type would ritters team(Fields collection) have labeled it as such and also what T. knuthianus is supposed to look like if the Au plant isnt in fact knuthianus. The reason i believe(d) this bumpy looking plant is knuthianus is due to the fact thats what it is named in Fields collection and also at a garden in Tasmania (Hobart botanic gardens?)

I found one picture of knuthianus in a collection of shots from knize that is different - KK1911 knuthianus

(It is a knize collection though and i know some of you think little of him and his methods.)

Anyone else have any pictures that lend weight to the idea that the Au clone isnt what its thought to be??? As for now the label on my plant is staying the way it is until the plant is shown to be otherwise or till i get to Fields to pick Roberts brain for more detailed info or records on the collection.

[strangebrew]

The reason i believe(d) this bumpy looking plant is knuthianus is due to the fact thats what it is named in Fields collection and also at a garden in Tasmania (Hobart botanic gardens?)

Well as far as Aussie Botanic Gardens and cacti ID's go, I believe you should question everything - Adelaide has some beauties.

Field's are also calling the sausage plant a bridgesoid are they not? If you or I add up everything we know about bridgesii, that ID just doesn't hold up at all.

The aussie knuthianus also appears to change spination colour from yellow to grey like cuscoensis appears to. Knuthianus photos are few and far between when net searching but the ones I have found never look anything like ours, seemingly having consistent spination colour and a standard tricho profile. For anyone image searching, I know murple and brcacti have alleged knuthianus or should that be knuthianii?

No ones saying people should change ID's, only be open minded enough to question them.

Edited January 11, 2009 by strangebrew

[PD.]

And questioning them i will be, especially the so called "sausage plant" ID at fields like you mentioned doesnt add up when classed as a bridgesiod and id like to know how he thinks/knows it is as such. It was one of the last plants we looked at after around four hours in the hot summer sun and hordes of flies so is quiet possible Robert made a mistake or was just in a hurry to get me the hell out of there:P That or he may not know at all or forgotten due to the huge amount of plants he has there of all sorts, not just trichos and remebering all the names of such a large collection is a feat in itself especially since all the info would have been handed down from his father long ago. One can only hope there is written records of importations, even then, there still could quiet have easily been mistakes such as mislabeled plants/collection data but Id be suprised if data like that exists at all.

....but back to issue at hand, if anyone has pics of a plant that goes by the name of T. knuthianus id really like to see them, i have a mental visual void that needs to be filled.

Questions questions questions.

[PD.]

Well the only thing i could really find that could help me in regards to knuthianus was a written piece by Ritter (in german) in "Trouts notes" web pages. There was one bit that sang out and that was "thus: Trichocereus cuzcoensis var. knuthianus" which would make sense with all the apparent cuzcoid traits the plant pictured in this thread has. Now i tried to translate the page but the translation was terrible and even after working out a few of the mistakes it was hard (for me) to understand (apparently Backberg means cheek mountain in english and Ritter translates as Knight!! ). Anyone have a better understanding of what Ritter was saying in this piece? My brain no work goods todays

PAGE

where is EG when ya need him!

[strangebrew]

Knize found his 1911 knuthianus in Chile at Rio Marañon,Llamelin,1800m but whether that photo above is actually it is anyone's guess.

Google's translation of that piece on Trout's notes isn't that bad, at least you can kind of work out where Ritter is coming from.

http://translate.google.com.au/translate?h...%3Doff%26sa%3DN

Backberg's T.tarmaensis & puquiensis are synonymous with Backeberg's Trichocereus knuthianus which in turn is a variety of Britton & Rose's cuzcoensis. Well that's my take on it.

Edited January 11, 2009 by strangebrew

[M S Smith]

Here is a cactus that sort of fits the description of T. puquiensis and is from Dept. Ayacucho and the Wari ruins there. The town of Puquio is in Ayacucho. Ritter described T. puquiensis as from Ayacucho and, like mentioned above, as a T. cuzcoensis sort of plant.

Here's a plant growing in Tarma, Dept. Junin, Peru, and possibly T. tarmaensis. Fit sort of into T. cuzcoensis I guess.

Good sleuthing strangebrew!

~Michael~

[PD.]

Thanks SB, the first 2 sentences of the translation you got is alot clearer than what i got and therefore is quiet easy to understand now.

So basicly, the Au knuthianus which was sent here by Ritter and named as such would be correct no? or more correctly T. cuzcoensis var knuthianus. The only point in question being the one MS raised and that being the area knuthianus is said to be from which apparently cuzcoensis forms arent found.