Trichocereus Peruvianus Truxilloensis

[Inyan]

Anyone have any experience with growing this particular variety? What is the history of this one?

http://www.highstreet.nl/shop/catalog/Peru...cm-p-16283.html

http://www.shamanic-extracts.com/xcart/sha...ear-8-10cm.html

Any hybrids with this particular mom or dad?

[M S Smith]

Clear and utter bullshit only designed to cash in. Those selling this plant under this name and under these promotional grounds should be ashamed of themselves, seriously.

Trichocereus is used five times in Adam Gottlieb's Peyote and other Psychoactive Cacti (1977 version at Erowid) as a full word, and four times as the abbreviated "T". It doesn't even mention "peruvianus" at all, much less "truxilloensis" (meaning from Trujillo, Peru). Maybe the 1997 version is different (I'll see mine once I get home), but that doesn't change my opinion about these two sales sites.

"Up to 10 times more mescaline than any other San Pedro" ---- Yeah, right. Seriously, think about it.

~Michael~

Edited January 25, 2009 by M S Smith

[Inyan]

I'm glad you saved me from this blunder then as I was about to cash in their entire stock. Laughing, now you know how pissed I would have been as I would have saved two or three for hybridizing and well the rest would be proof undeniable to me one way or the other. Thanks for the save Michael.

[M S Smith]

At the bottom of each page is a "Product or Customer Rating" - I selected "poor." The first link won't let me rate, but the second one did.

I might note that Trujillo is well known for the ceremonial use of your normal T. pachanoi, but I am not at all aware that T. peruvianus is even grown there. I think the whole thing is crap. I would though appreciate someone looking at the 1997 edition of Gottlieb to see if he mentions such a plant, though I don't think he does; I would have to dig into storage to find my book.

Hell, I bet should you order this plant you'll get a T. cuzcoensis form.

~Michael~

[sharxx101]

Marketing gimmic!!!

Some people will believe anything they read.

[trucha]

This one is weird as we have yet to firmly nail down its origin despite so much being in front of us.

otj sold this as seeds. They told me their seed came from NMCR.

Same story with Oasis.

NMCR is believed to have sourced this from Knize (according to those sources) although I have questions on that since Knize does not appear to have ever listed this name in his sales literature.

I've seen some nice sized ones of these. While we are still waiting for floral confirmation everything else is really solidly in line with the proposal that the correct ID is Rauhocereus riosaniensis.

[Evil Genius]

The seedling thats pictured in these two links doesnt look like a Trich! I know sellers that just relabel every columnar cactus Trichocereus just to make a few extra bucks! Marketing names like these are responsible for the name chaos on the commercial cactus market. bye Eg

[trucha]

It may have been Ressler that spotted this as a mislabel initially.

At some point when time permits I''l get some images uploaded of an older tip on the trujilloensis and one of the riosaniensis.

We need floral confirmation of course but so far this appears to be the right ID.

It quite likely that it became a 'peruvianus' entirely due to sales potential but could have also been an honest mistake based on the state of everyone's awareness in that time period. Basically in those years anything with a v-notch or mark was getting called a peruvianus or was being asked if it were a peruvianus. There was a huge dearth of real specimens for comparison (outside of some botanical gardens)

Remember that this was during the final parts of the era when DZ was still actively spending huge amounts of time, money and energy ferreting out any and all real peruvianus in an attempt to remove them from availability in the market entirely. (If people ever wondered why a peruvianus was so damn hard to find for sale in 1993.)

He also collected other trichs too but did not want other people to have access to any real peruvianus. Thankfully he has other interests now. Sometimes some people have more money than is good for the rest of us.

Whatever.

[t st tantra]

so what has DZ done with all this peruvianus?

t s t .

[Teotzlcoatl]

This is an extremely rare variety of Peruvianus, also known as the Peruvian Torch Cactus, which is closely related to the San Pedro.

The Trichocereus Peruvianus Truxilloensis is reported to contain some of the largest amount of mescaline of all known mescaline-containing cacti (up to 10 times more mescaline than any other San Pedro cactus according to Adam Gottlieb in his book Peyote and other Psychoactive cacti).

It grows considerably faster than peyote and you can achieve a trip from a 4-year-old cactus.

The Tricocereus Peruvianus gives clear visions and hallucinations during a mystical and earthy trip.

You need one cactus for a beginner's trip and if you are more experienced you can use two. With two cacti you will have a full-blown experience.

What a stupid thing to say!!! Are they TRYING to get Trichocereus made illegal?!

I HATE vendors like that!!!!

Edited January 31, 2009 by Teotz'

[M S Smith]

It may have been Ressler that spotted this as a mislabel initially.

At some point when time permits I''l get some images uploaded of an older tip on the trujilloensis and one of the riosaniensis.

We need floral confirmation of course but so far this appears to be the right ID.

Well here is a picture of the old "...of the jungle" plant known as "T. peruvianus var. trujilloensis" I grew from seed many years ago. Sadly it wasn't hardy to my winter conditions and died a long time ago, which explains the poor photo.

Bob Ressler told me it reminded him of Rauhocereus riosanensis as seen in the picture below.

But I am not convinced the old "T. peruvianus var. trujilloensis" is R. riosantaensis. I think it may be Cleistocactus fieldianus as can see in the following photos.

I'd like to say though that I don't think either of these web sites are making reference to this older version of "T. peruvianus var. trujilloensis" which hasn't been around for a very long time, but rather I think they have simply either come across another plant with a similar name or have contrived the name as a sales ploy. The photo of the "truxilloensis" on the sales sites doesn't look anything like the "trujilloensis" from "...otj."

~Michael~

Edit to change "does" to "doesn't" in that last sentence...opps, my bad

Edited February 1, 2009 by M S Smith

[trucha]

A friend has been growing the riosaniensis and trijilloensis side by side for a few years now in a large tub. They are increasingly hard to tell apart without looking at labels.

One thing that is the same as elsewhere is both appear to show variability in spination.

I'll get some pictures posted.

Flowers will tell.

I finally got those pages to load.

I have no clue what is being shown in that image or where its name came from.

Edited February 4, 2009 by trucha

[Garbage]

Good looking plants whatever else you call them.

[trucha]

Some vendors seem to have no sense.

My favorite was a few years ago when a large quantity of voacanga seed was seized en route to a retailer.

Customs apparently went to his website, saw it being advertised there as containing ibogaine and similar, the USDA planted and grew some of his seed out, tested it, found it contained nothing illegal and sent it on to him months later.

It is a beautiful plant they show but the wealth of bad data and lack of common sense does not inspire a lot of confidence in the vendor.

Gottlieb's 10X mention is simply of peruvianus.

Edited February 4, 2009 by trucha

[trucha]

Has anyone out there had their trujilloensis flower yet?

A friend's should flower soon but by soon I mean some not distant year rather than the immediate future. Its around my height and increasingly stout.