trichocereus cuzcoensis

[The Dude]

trichocereus cuzcoensis seems to be quite common here in South Aus. Anybody have any comments on its personality? Should i get to know it better? I mean that's the idea of diving head first into unknown waters, my only concern is that it tastes much different, still insanely hideous but a much sharper sweet/sour sort of bite rather than that familiar bitter. Maybe I'm being too soft. Eat a spoonful of cement annat.

[Teotzlcoatl]

All Trichocereus cuzcoensis here in America are next to worthless.... they are only good as a grafting stock!

[Gunter]

All Trichocereus cuzcoensis here in America are next to worthless.... they are only good as a grafting stock!

Where did you get this idea?

Keeper Trouts book SP clearly mentions accounts of the cuzcoensis being quite effective. There are many accounts of them being inactive however it is said some horticultural forms in the states are known to be effective.

Active and effective cacti aren't always bitter either.

I think that the 242 issue is the source of the bad info that keeps getting passed along online.

For example there is no single 242 form, there are several, yet some people keep passing along the idea that 242 is cuzcoensis and ineffective at that. This is totally inaccurate. There are not only several forms collected with the 242 number applied to them by Knize, a small number of the ones Smith has noted as likely being allied to cuzcoensis are actually active and effective while many are not. The effective ones have been noted to have a degree of bitterness, however many active and effective cacti are not very bitter.

I expect these issues will remain a point of confusion for decades from now due to the spread of poor information online.

[Teotzlcoatl]

The most common T. peruvianus sold in the U.S.A. by ethnobotanical vendors is almost always a completely inactive Trichocereus cuzcoensis.

There exists other clones of Trichocereus cuzcoensis which may have different potency levels... but it has been proven time and time again that the commonly sold "Trichocereus peruvianus" in the U.S.A. is actually T. cuzcoensis and totally inactive.

I happen to have one uncommon Trichocereus cuzcoensis clone which is said to be potent. It looks different that the commonly sold inactive T. cuzcoensis.

Collection data for Trichocereus cuzcoensis var. Ollantaytambo-

#Teo-0030

Botanical Name- Trichocereus cuzcoensis

Collector- Rob Montgomery in 1998

Location of Origin- Ruins near Ollantaytambo, Cuzco, Peru

Vendor- Sacred Succulents

You are correct about what you say about "KK242"... just because a cactus has that number doesn't mean it's T. cuzcoensis or even the same clone! Knize is a crazy fucker!

For example there is no single 242 form, there are several, yet some people keep passing along the idea that 242 is cuzcoensis and ineffective at that. This is totally inaccurate.

Correct my good sir. Thats why I call them T. cuzcoensis and not "KK242".

Point is... it's best to stay away from Trichocereus which look like the common U.S.A. clone of T. cuzcoensis if your looking for an active cactus.

Active and effective cacti aren't always bitter either.

Also very true. I never thought that was good method of testing anything!

Edited March 14, 2009 by Teotz'

[Gunter]

The most common T. peruvianus sold in the U.S.A. by ethnobotanical vendors is almost always a completely inactive Trichocereus cuzcoensis.

That has not been my experience.

it has been proven time and time again that the commonly sold "Trichocereus peruvianus" in the U.S.A. is actually T. cuzcoensis and totally inactive.

How was the plant identified as T cuzcoensis?

Maybe it is actually an inactive form of peruvianus.

I know someone who has an active KK242 that is one of these so called cuzcoensis forms, it is not very strong but it isn't "totally inactive" and it has slightly bitter flesh.

I happen to have one uncommon Trichocereus cuzcoensis clone which is said to be potent. It looks different that the commonly sold inactive T. cuzcoensis.

Why can't the active one be real cuzcoensis and cuzcoensis be active? Where is the reasoning and logic here? Why is inactivity of a peruvianus clone conflated with it being a cuzcoensis? This sounds suspect to me.

You are correct about what you say about "KK242"... just because a cactus has that number doesn't mean it's T. cuzcoensis or even the same clone! Knize is a crazy fucker!

I don't think Knize is any less or more crazy than anyone who has posted in this thread. How does having a regional number for collections equate to crazy anyway? If anything it is rather intelligent and illustrates that several San Pedro allies occur in the same region. Imagine that you have different numbers for these plants and they still occur in the same area, more confusion would be ensured, not less. It is a damned if you do or don't situation there. Knize has done a lot for our cause my friend, if that means he is crazy then we all are. He sure isn't a model business man but the major source of the Knize related confusion comes from the plants, not Knize himself, without knize the problem would still remain.

[~shameless~]

Well just wondering peeps in the US does this look like the standard US cuzcoensis clone that teotz was talking about.

Hey teotz have u ever tried to get close with one, are you just saying that they are ineffective because you have seen

it on the web??

I'm considering taking it to the next level with this one right here, nice old piece,

regardless i'll post what happens anyway, good night eastern seaboarders

I hate Monday's

[M S Smith]

Let me see if I can add some clarity to this topic, or else maybe a bit more confusion.

Through most of the 1990s the most common form of "T. peruvianus" available through ethnobotanical companies and Mesa Garden seed were the "T. peruvianus" labeled as "KK242", "KK338", "blue form", "f. ancash", "f. cuzcoensis", "Tarma", "Pamacoche", and "No. 427".

All of these were at that time of a quite similar, if not identical form, with some insignificant variability which was then being debated, but which all no doubt are lumped together if they fit the main characteristics.

1) Blue Form

2) F. cuscoensis

3) F. ancash

4) KK242

5) KK338

So at one time this form of plant was what most ethno-companies were selling as T. peruvianus and was what many who were interested in Trichocereus thought was T. peruvianus. I was later to point out that this form of plant bore similarities to plants in different botanical collections that were labeled as T. cuzcoensis. Once I started looking at the plants that grew in Peru it became obvious that those pictured above were not like those from the region from which T. peruvianus was said to come, particularly Matucana, but rather were similar to plants in and around Cuzco and the Inca Trail such as these below.

Such plants, like others species, bear a range of variable traits, including spine color and length, but all appear to bear spines which have the swollen base, as can be seen in this shot on the "blue form." This feature isn't usually apparent until the areole hairs are removed.

As it stands today there has been a bit of correcting regarding what is T. peruvianus and T. cuzcoensis, but it is certainly important to note that though T. cuzcoensis does not in general appear to contain mescaline comparable to T. peruvianus or T. pachanoi this doesn't disqualify it, or at least forms of it, from possibly being comparable, it's just that they haven't been found yet, or at least not by me. I say this though with an assumption that the species is a very poor carrier of mescaline, but with noting that there are plenty of T. pachanoi in particular that are in the region of Cuzco that probably have entered T. cuzceosnsis' gene pool. I've also been aware of rumors that T. cuzcoensis can be found in markets for traditional use, but I have only encountered through my research the presence of T. pachanoi. I've wondered if simply because a cactus was found in the markets of Cuzco that it was assumed to be T. cuzcoensis.

Lastly, and getting back to the T. peruvianus KK242 issue...there are plants that since the early 2000's have fallen under this name and are not the T. cuzcoensis form as seen above, but though the KK242 is said to come from Matucana most of these newer KK242's don't even match the T. peruvianus from there, but rather appear to be the rather ubiquitous T. pachanoi.

I certainly find it a bit strange, and even a bit disconcerting, that the KK242 number is applied to two plants that aren't native to Matucana. And with that I hope to never hear a word again regarding the "KK242", but I doubt I should be so lucky.

~Michael~

Edited March 15, 2009 by M S Smith

[Teotzlcoatl]

Hey teotz have u ever tried to get close with one, are you just saying that they are ineffective because you have seen it on the web??

1 foot did nothing.

2 feet did nothing.

I felt a little something on 3 feet but it was probably placebo.

4 feet made me hurl.

I stopped after that.

I also talked to MANY, many people who had the same experience with T. cuzcoensis.

And with that I hope to never hear a word again regarding the "KK242", but I doubt I should be so lucky.

Ya seriously, let's drop that bullshit.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Teotz'

[Gunter]

I wish we could see some photographs of some of the other cuzcoensis collections which are not the same as the phenotype depicted.

The so called short spined 242 is a very desirable clone.

[M S Smith]

Archaea, from which collections?

I'd probably just say the "short spined 242" is just your average peruvian T. pachanoi of variable growth habit. Here's mine...

~Michael~

[Teotzlcoatl]

I wish we could see some photographs of some of the other cuzcoensis collections which are not the same as the phenotype depicted

I'll post my Trichocereus cuzcoensis var. Ollantaytambo pics soon!

I don't think Knize is any less or more crazy than anyone who has posted in this thread. How does having a regional number for collections equate to crazy anyway?

Having two totally different plants which are named the same thing?

if that means he is crazy then we all are

I'm pretty sure a fair number of us are fucking nuts.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Teotz'

[mac]

I was sent this cutting to replace a bridgesii that rotted while shipping & at first thought it may have been a hybrid

After comparing pics i thought it may be peruvianus or cuzcoensis, im still trying hard to get my ID's even close

M S Smith kindly gave me the correct ID as 100% cuzcoensis

Edited March 15, 2009 by mac

[Gunter]

http://www.trout.yage.net/sc/T_cuzcoensis_...coensis_UC.html

http://www.trout.yage.net/sc/T_cuzcoensis_...s_Cuzco_La.html

cut and paste this one:

//home-and-garden.webshots.com/album/487407315GnoqpY

I wish we had a 'how to identify cuzcoensis' post here, or did I just miss one somewhere?

An interesting cuzcoensis # is 57.0360

That plant looks related to the alleged cuzcoensis kk242, but not fully synonymous.

[t st tantra]

does this cuzcoensis grow as a clumper?

t s t .

[Teotzlcoatl]

Trichocereus cuzcoensis is variable just like the other Trichocereus species.

[mac]

Cheers for the links Archaea

The T. cuzcoensis i have looks alot like the Form 2, from Berkeley botanical gardens its has, i cant be sure its still a little dehydrated but has thrown out some roots so ill get a better pic once i give it a good drink towards the end of the week

It has 7 ribs & looks to be the same as the Trichocereus cuzcoensis form 2 image from the link Archea posted //home-and-garden.webshots.com/album/487407315GnoqpY

I will try to get more info from the seller if i hear back from them

Edited March 16, 2009 by mac

[~shameless~]

Thanks Teotz for your experiences & MS Smith for the great photo's and explanation.

Good info guys!!, Good topic as well!!

[trucha]

There is a lot of data conflict lacking resolution.

Serrano could find no positives at all looking at several populations in Peru.

Agurell and someone else (I think maybe Lindgren or Lundstrom?) on the other hand reported just the opposite using European nursery stock.

A yet to be published analytical account of one of the cuzcoensoids identical to some of what Knize has distributed found it to be fairly potent. Once this goes to print formally I can post the pertinent details and reference.

As people might have seen me mention elsewhere here it can be a huge mistake to extrapolate information from anywhere else to something in their hands. ALL of the proposed and accepted 'species' with positive analytical reports in the scientific literature seem to be able to vary from worthless to not at all worthless and still be completely correctly identified.

its easy to assume these involve errors of identification but there is a consistent pattern here suggesting that is too fast of a conclusion.

Edited March 16, 2009 by trucha

[The Dude]

Feelings of weird almost opiatey sort of buzz, heavy body feeling, excited but lethargic (possibly also due to sleep dep as others were jumping round raving and overheating) Close my eyes for a split second and a brightly colored motif begins fractalling on itself not too significant in symbolism.. then the last second it clicks as the usual self deprecating hilarity i get on these experiences.. a gentle little kick up the arse to get my act together, funny as! but i wont get into details for now. On a few other occasions would close my eyes again to see this some more.

Have a short nap while mates crank the beats. Really tired from lack of sleep but the buzz wont let me even stop moving!!! With eyes closed the music is made visible as synesthesia. Colours, shapes and textures shift accordingly to the progression of the beats with different qualities of the visuals shifting in synch with different qualities of the beats, for instance the rythm and melodies would alter the shape and colour and the pitch or texture of the sound would shift the texture and spatial properties, like it was in front of me as a physical object, it was beyond description really how much 'sense' it made. I could almost feel and taste it. it was the visual/tactile representation of music, not an interpretation, THE representation, conversely the music was the representation of this object, the way it fit was just really really cool, that i wish i could describe it.

Lots of mental wanderings on the nature of mind. Conversations and music and movies seemed to carry an undercurrent of subtle meaning that felt like an interconnected cosmic appreciation of life that seemed present in everything. Prior thought patterns came full circle as some kind of demonstration of cause/effect and the inspiration to feel this connection at all times whether off-tap or sober became re-installed for hopefully a bit longer this time. Recognition of mind over matter and our ability to get what we want.. what we expect at least. Feel liberated from mental worries with my omnipotent will to think and therefore manifest whatever the fuck i want.

Had one interesting experience of having an actual conversation with my mind. Internal Monologue split into a dialogue. I was questioning the validity of this 'extra' part of my being and it would respond as if not from me, but it talked and thought just as i would it was like hearing an extra terrestial source of my thoughts, cuz my slow terrestial brain was lagging behind what 'it' said as i slowly got my own jokes.

I find it hillarious that we actually THINK how we talk, it all gets processed by our semantic language barrier first. Hence thinking through colours and shapes as a language was pretty fucking cool. I don't even recall over-analysing any of it with my cumbersome inadequate words, until just now.

Anyway thought this is of interest cuz these cacti are pretty prolific and grow super quick, super fat, F'cking tall and really clumpy, go find one at a location near you!

Edited March 18, 2009 by The Dude

[ballzac]

Awesome report dude. Quite exciting to know that some of these are active.

[strangebrew]

Got pics? & how much was taken?

Mine turned into a thorned beast, there was no way I was even going to attempt cutting that up.

[~shameless~]

^^ Now i'm really interested!!^^

[M S Smith]

Yeah, what strangebrew said.

~Michael~

[trucha]

KK242 needs qualifiers.

Knize recognizes KK242 Rio Lurin, KK242 Rio Chillon, KK242 f. Matucana and (at least) 6 others. If the name KK242 is spoken alone it is meaningless.

According to *Karel Knize*, 6 of Knize's 9 (or ?) KK242 "peruvianus" are rather to very short spined.

Of course let's not forget his KK242 that turned out to be a gorgeous bridgesii. Then of course there are those seedlings that have fairly regularly gotten Michael a tad agitated over the years.

People just need more of a sense of humor. This stuff just can't be taken too seriously.

What is truly funny, imho, is that Knize is by far the single biggest wholesale cactus seed supplier on the planet not just for trichs but for a huge amount of what cacti get sold by the major seed houses. He has been in business doing this since 1967.

No doubt he has caused problems for those of us who want some sort of order in naming but we are all going to miss him when he is dead.

Edited March 19, 2009 by trucha

[ballzac]

When anyone in the ethnobotany community uses the term kk242 without context, one would generally assume that they are talking about cuzcoensis, or perhaps a specific form of cuzcoensis. So although it may be an abuse of the original meaning of the terminology, for all intents and purposes I do not think that it is pointless to use the term kk242 colloquially to mean cuzcoensis within the ethnobotany community. Although I think that it could get a little confusing for noobs when they hear about kk242 bridgesii having been under the impression that kk242 means cuzcoensis, but that's a minor issue when you consider how confusing all of this taxonomy and terminology really is anyway.

Got pics? & how much was taken?

wasn't gonna ask cause sometimes this kind of discussion is frowned upon, but yes, I am also curious to know this.