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

[M S Smith]

PD, this raises the question of what defines what a species is and isn't. Is it impossible to have a T. cuzcoensis form of plant found at the "upper Marañon", no it's not, as someone could have transplanted it there, even a great deal of time ago, and Ritter could have noted that it grew in this particular region and wasn't quite like the T. cuzcoensis of Dept. Cuzco by which he defined this latter species, but somewhat similar.

But was Ritter looking at a localized plant that could have propagated via clippings or felled branches, or was he looking at plants that had a larger population and propagated via seedlings in the native soil?

I am more inclined to considering a Trichocereus a species or variation by the standards Anderson considers Lophophora; that being that there has to be a distinct population of the plants that bear the traits and naturally reproduce.

So there may be a plant in the upper Marañon that fits the description of that provided for T. knuthianus, and it may appear to be along the lines of a T. cuzcoensis, but unless the plant has a local population of plants that propagate via seedlings that take naturally to the local environment and soil I am uncertain it should be considered a species as opposed to being an import...even if we don't know from where.

Interestingly enough we don't have similar confusion in defining the species or variations of southern Peru, Chile, and Bolivia, this because species and variations can be more clearly defined, not only by their particular botanical characteristics, but because they have clearly defined areas over which they grow and propagate via seed.

So in this regard I am not convinced that either T. tarmaensis, T. knuthianus, or T. puquiensis are species, being that they don't appear to have a clear range of habitat in which they naturally spread via seedlings. Though I have seen photographs of plants that I might consider T. tarmaensis and T. puquiensis from the areas in which they are said to come from I am not convinced that either has anything but a very limited area of growth in which they are propagated by clipping and felled limbs.

By these standards I see the T. peruvianus of Huarochir, Dept. Lima, as a species and T. cuzcoensis of Cuzco (particularly around Ollantaytambo ) as species. I don't particularly see T. pachanoi as a species as it seems to be so deeply attached to humans and human settlements while apparently lacking a "wild" population that grows freely over a given territory and propagates by seed without assistance (I am desperate to be proved otherwise on this last point).

Heading further south of Dept. Lima and Dept. Cuzco there are a number of well defined specie which do qualify by this territorial and propagatory definition of species, including T. cephalomacrostibas, T. chalensis, and T. glaucus. I am uncertain about T. schoenii, or whatever plant that is which is widely cultivated in the Colca Canyon regions. But clearly once you step even further south into Chile, Argentina and southern Bolivia we run into a great deal that fit this definition among the columnars, including T. chiliensis, T. atacamensis, T. candicans, T. terscheckii, T. tacaquirensis, etc, not to mention the more colorful varieties of smaller Echinopsis.

So does Knize's KK1911 T. knuthianus come from Chile at Rio Marañon? Quite possibly if such a river even exists in Chile (even if so it has no relation whatsoever to that of Peru), but should we automatically assume that there is a general KK1911 population that fits this description and propagates via seedling, well of course not, particularly when it is so incredibly obvious that these plants have a very lengthy history in the region, a region whose ancient populations had very well defined trade routes.

~Michael~

[strangebrew]

I think that must be an input mistake by Knize, surely that should be Peru rather than Chile?

anyway here's a photo of trout's of T.puquiensis at the Huntington Gardens.

[M S Smith]

I think that must be an input mistake by Knize, surely that should be Peru rather than Chile?

anyway here's a photo of trout's of T.puquiensis at the Huntington Gardens.

Yeah, probably just a mistake about Chile. I'm sure you realize I was only trying to make a point.

Otherwise, any additional thoughts on the views I expressed in those last lengthy comments of mine?

~Michael~

[Evil Genius]

Hi Guys! I´m back! I was on vacations because of the cold fuckin winter in germany! I´ll read into this thread later and post some translations! bye Eg

Edited January 12, 2009 by Evil Genius

[Evil Genius]

Ok, i have few time atm but i´ll translate a lil bit:

Trichocereus tarmaensis Rauh & Bckbg. und Trichocereus puquiensis Rauh & Bckbg. can be considered synonymous with Trichocereus knuthianus Bckbg. 1937 ! All three are a less spinier variety of Trichocereus cuzcoensis Br.& R.! Ritter questions Backebergs remark that Trichoc. puquiensis has more Ribs than Trichoc. cuzcoensis! Trichoc. puquiensis has 8-10 while Backeberg's Trichoc. knuthianus has 7-10 and Trichoc. cuzcoensis 6-10! Ritter hated Backeberg and continued with a rant about backebergs habit to make up a species after looking at just one plant! He basically says that Backeberg does not know shit as he hasnt seen as many Varieties as himself! bye Eg

[PD.]

LOL. thanks heaps for that translation EG, you put it into terms i could understand alot better

[trucha]

That should read UC rather than the Huntington.

The larger cuzcoensis topic needs some dissection and deeper inspection. I am way behind on image uploads but hope I can start that within several weeks.

Edited January 21, 2009 by trucha

[Chiral]

I think that must be an input mistake by Knize, surely that should be Peru rather than Chile?

anyway here's a photo of trout's of T.puquiensis at the Huntington Gardens.

I had a really close look at this picture and am I wrong in saying that the cuttings I recently acquired are the same..if not can someone please id this one for me.