trichocereus cuzcoensis

[Gunter]

I am not comfortable claiming that cuzocoensis is inactive or that the common KK242 is synonymous with cuzcoensis. That is just me though.

[t st tantra]

so am i.......i live in adelaide and dont know of what he speaks.......but do have one curio i hope i can hang this id on........

t s t .

[M S Smith]

I am not comfortable claiming that cuzocoensis is inactive or that the common KK242 is synonymous with cuzcoensis. That is just me though.

I'm comfortable in at least saying that it appears to be a significantly lower carrier of mescaline than other Trichocereus. As for what it "is", well I have also shown my reticence towards simply claiming it as a T. cuzcoensis by in most cases calling it "T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)". I clearly don't think it should be called KK242 at all as it doesn't appear to grow in the regions claimed for the KK242 by Knize himself.

But I am curious Archaea what exactly you think this particular "KK242" is as it doesn't match any other plant as well as it matches the descriptions of T. cuzcoensis. It also matches plants growing around Cuzco more than any other plant I have seen, but even in this region there is a degree of variability and which is why not all the plants I think fit into the species match identically to that plant from which the original description was made. In this regard it is not too different than T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. bridgesii, all of which show some variability in characteristics.

~Michael~

[Gunter]

Well Mike, I think that it likely is a form of cuzcoensis, which appears to me to be somewhat variable. But It might be a type of peruvianus which also seems highly variable.

The problem is the inconsistencies in the form of the exceptions and my issue with absolute statements.

In general I agree with your assessments regarding the form in question and the description for cuzcoensis.

I don't want to promote the impression that all kk242 are undesirable for practicing psychonauts nor the idea that all cuzcoensis are likewise undesirable for psychonauts.

I can agree that the cuzcoensis allied forms including the KK242 form in question seem to be less consistent in regard to the presence of mescaline than any other closely related plant in the San pedro allies species complex.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Archaea

[cactophyle]

Whether KK242 is the same as Cuzcoensis is at debatable, but if it has white spines then it is not a Peruvianus in my book. A friend had a KK242 and it had nice amber/caramel young spines, but the mature spines were white as a bone. He said that "good" Peruvianus does not get white spines ever, and was completely dissapointed with his KK242. Unfortunately, as we all know, even the good online vendors almost always try to sell KK242 as Peruvianus.

caviat emptor

[t st tantra]

hey dude,lol,you talking about the knuthians or whatever it is ,the one with bumpy/notchy ribs?

t s t .

[Evil Genius]

Unfortunately, as we all know, even the good online vendors almost always try to sell KK242 as Peruvianus.

Very true! Ebay is full of them! About 50% percent of all the Peruvianus on ebay are 242! bye Eg

[M S Smith]

The application of the KK242 number to these "T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)" plants should seriously stop as the KK242 was described as coming from Matucana, and this suspected T. cuzcoensis quite obviously doesn't. This would seem to indicate that it isn't a KK242 at all, but rather was mislabeled as a KK242.

The probable process in this misnaming was that this T. cuzcoensis(?) form was misidentified as T. peruvianus, and then since T. peruvianus was known to come from Matucana the T. cuzcoensis(?) gained the KK242 number as that was an number Knize associated with T. peruvianus of Matucana.

The plant I've regarded as the "T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)" and which is now commonly referred to simply as "T. cuzcoensis" is not a KK242 and never should have been considered as such in my estimation and opinion. The number KK242 should in my opinion apply to the proper sort of T. peruvianus which come from the Matucana and the surrounding area, but in the end the KK242 number has become so convoluted and applied to numerous plants that it would be worthwhile to not use it at all as it just causes confusion.

Call my "T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)" simply T. cuzcoensis if you want, and call the T. peruvianus just T. peruvianus, but the KK242 number offers nothing as it is not even clear that should you get a "KK242" in your collection that it would match the common T. peruvianus of Matucana at all. And actually, considering all the apparent T. pachanoi that now have the KK242 label, you likely aren't even going to get a T. peruvianus.

~Michael~

Edited March 21, 2009 by M S Smith

[Osprey]

I can say from experience that the #427 michael pictured (grown from JHHudson seed)is totally inactive.

tried another very similar one (called T.peru tarma.looks like 427,but more "muscular"that was weak,but had a beautiful clean scrumptious magical quality.

What a lovely day that was!

[The Dude]

No Idea about the proper nomenclature of this one anymore, I can't be stuffed with the arguments over naming where people seem to just confuse the issue even more. Can we have some fricken consensus please? I mean I've got nfi what this one is cuz it doesn't look anything like those last two photos, so which one is it?

I can get an ACTUAL photo of the plant in question once I get the opportunity, but it looks fairly identical to the photo above, maybe a bit more spaced out in its clumpiness and judging from the cropped photo, much taller and fatter.

As for the amounts it is hard to say as there was some massive waste-age and no standardised amount taken. I go by goo consistency rather than starting length anyway. Roughly a foot was active it seems. Really hard to guesstimate this one though so don't take it as sage advice.

[Gunter]

What you have there is a San Pedro cactus.

Forget about species, all you have with that is a clusterfuck of ego.

It can be called a peruvianoid san pedro.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Archaea

[cactophyle]

No Idea about the proper nomenclature of this one anymore, I can't be stuffed with the arguments over naming where people seem to just confuse the issue even more. Can we have some fricken consensus please? I mean I've got nfi what this one is cuz it doesn't look anything like those last two photos, so which one is it?

This has long white spines, so I'd consider it a beautiful garden plant, but not a peruvianus. Again, in my book there is a clear line drawn: peruvianus does not have white spines at any age.

[cactophyle]

I think the classic argument can be clarified in stating that KK242 is 'cuzcoensinoid', not 'peruvianoid'.

Chemical analysis have long demonstrated cuzcoensis to be inactive. Therefore, if a plant is related to cuzcoensis instead of peruvianus you should be able to draw the correct conclusion. Can I be any clearer?

Edited March 22, 2009 by cactophyle

[~shameless~]

^^ Umm, can i ask this - i thought kk242 was realating to an area that Karel Knize collected specimens from, now catophyle is actually calling it a cactus variety as in "KK242 Is Cuzcoensinoid"

I thought by previous posts that you could have many different species of trichs which fall under the tittle of KK242trichocereus whatever, AS THEY WERE COLLECTED FROM A SPECIFIC AREA, or is that wrong??

[PD.]

AS THEY WERE COLLECTED FROM A SPECIFIC AREA

Correct.

[The Dude]

Upon double checking the cutting i have, it actually has NO white spines at all. They're all orange, they're a tiny bit thinner than white spines of other cacti but just as many and as long and gnarly as the photo above. The cactus seems quite a lot fatter than another "cuzco" I've got and there is a lumpy effect at the aereoles (not massive but noticeable) which my other cuzco doesn't have. I want to see the mother plant again to see if older spines are white or not. If not then maybe I accidentally stumbled upon the "true blue" LOL It's fat and massive, long as fuck dark orange spines, and very glaucus prone. I want to get a photo of the mother plant soon so you can all hail me for finding this mythical beast (seriously doubt it - like there is any way to tell if it's the one, and I don't care that much for the enormous praise I'd get from one specific member obsessed with this myth... so lets just say its not the one eh?)

I even tried to measure the amount taken - it just didn't work, lotsa fuckups - point is maybe we could have a standard goo viscosity (whats the unit measurement) and judge by this standard the strength - for instance; about 150ml of goo was enough to come to the threshold of a proper experience, and at that level quite entertaining and insightful enough as it was. From limited experience, that seems quite alright!

[t st tantra]

piss off,i'm the one......neo,eon,etc.......lol

t s t .

[trucha]

WHICH KK242?

A number of years back I bought a few different KK242s directly from Knize as live material not seed. Not a one was remotely resembling cuzcoensis. Some, the minority, were peruvianus and the rest were pachanoi or pachanoid.

I know a fair number of other people that have also bought KK242 as live cuttings directly from Knize and this scenario has been consistent.

No argument about a fair bit, if not the majority, of the seed grown stuff but really to use KK242 bridgesii is no less confusing (or wrong) than using KK242 cuzcoensis. Knize's designation for cuzcoensis in any of his assorted name renderings is KK340.

Michael's long posted comment that the bulk of all commercially available KK242 seed was mislabeled cuzoensis seed is not at all unlikely and is quite probably the reality (although I certainly have seen the occasional lot that grew beautiful blue peruvianus, for example SOME of Cactus Gem's peruvianus, and Pardanani's published analysis of peruvianus - the only formally published analysis in the scientific literature that found any mescaline - was also from Knize's KK242 seed provided to Abbey Garden by Knize many years ago - well before most of us even started growing cacti from seed. If the latter was cuzcoensis, (I really have no clue at this late date never having seen Paradanai's material myself), we have another interesting question arising. There is also the situation of puquiensis and schoenii [and other mescaline containers that are in need of clarification] now either being lumped into cuzcoensis or leaning in that direction leaving more questions.)

Moving from considering something to be a mislabelling error to the correcting and relabeling of KK242 AS cuzcoensis does not really aid in actual understanding. I would suggest those cuzcoensis and cuzcoensoids from "KK242" seed are best regarded as a mislabel.

KK242 is not a collection number of a given population. It is a locality number from a specific region not including the Cuzco area.

If we agree with Michael's conclusions that seeds bearing KK242 producing cuzcoensis and cuzcoensislike plants are really mislabels those are incorrectly referred to as really being KK242.

I've also seen gorgeous Matucana-ish fat blue peruvianus grown from seeds labelled KK339 pachanoi. Should KK339 be relabeled peruvianus? How about the KK339 Knize ships as live material that ARE clearly Peruvian pachanoi?

I suspect the guy is just sloppy with his seed collection, handling, labeling or storage practices. If anyone has seen the images online showing his plates full of cactus seeds drying it is no stretch to think he could easily have mislabeled many hundreds of thousands of seeds in a single act.

It would be far better to call them "cuzcoensis mislabeled as KK242" Not as simple to write on a plant tag of course.

Far more people have acquired their "KK242" as seedlings than as live KK242 material from Knize which is why my line of thought may be counter to popular desires if not annoying in application.

Edited March 23, 2009 by trucha

[trucha]

One comment in regard to a question above.

It seems doubtful that the seriously cuzcoensis looking "KK242"s grown from seed or the clearly bridgesii arising from seed labeled KK242 came from anywhere around Matucana.

Knize himself told me in a letter that he recognizes at least 9 distinct KK242s from around Matucana.

No shortage of potential points of confusion in even that tiny part of this picture.

[Gunter]

I own peruvianoids with white spines, yellow spines, red spines, black spines, gray and brown as well.

spine color is not a way to determine species/form in my experience.

[egad]

Upon double checking the cutting i have, it actually has NO white spines at all. They're all orange, they're a tiny bit thinner than white spines of other cacti but just as many and as long and gnarly as the photo above. The cactus seems quite a lot fatter than another "cuzco" I've got and there is a lumpy effect at the aereoles (not massive but noticeable) which my other cuzco doesn't have. I want to see the mother plant again to see if older spines are white or not. If not then maybe I accidentally stumbled upon the "true blue" LOL It's fat and massive, long as fuck dark orange spines, and very glaucus prone. I want to get a photo of the mother plant soon so you can all hail me for finding this mythical beast (seriously doubt it - like there is any way to tell if it's the one, and I don't care that much for the enormous praise I'd get from one specific member obsessed with this myth... so lets just say its not the one eh?)

I even tried to measure the amount taken - it just didn't work, lotsa fuckups - point is maybe we could have a standard goo viscosity (whats the unit measurement) and judge by this standard the strength - for instance; about 150ml of goo was enough to come to the threshold of a proper experience, and at that level quite entertaining and insightful enough as it was. From limited experience, that seems quite alright!

I have seen this variety growing in a couple of gardens in melbourne too, and even got a small cutting of it. The older spines do seem to go almost white, close up it looks more like a very light gray. On fresh growth they are orangey yellow, with some black too. It grows big and fat, but it's definitely not the fabled 'true blue', far from it (if there even is such a beast, i would think it more along the lines of the roseii form of peruvianus). Unless growing in the shade it turns to be a lightish green colour in full sun, and a darker green when growing in part shade.

[trucha]

My favorite report was concerning peruvianus that both Grizzly and Hubbie found above Matucana with fat based yellow spines on tips of new growth on some columns and black and red spines on new growth on other columns, sometimes on separate plants but sometimes all present on the same mother plant.

[~shameless~]

Im doing a bit off poting at the moment and over the next few weeks anyway , yeah a bit early,

But expecting its going to be another warmish october november into a sweltering summer i thought i d get going.

And i found this had happened to a cuzco on the side that was facing the fence , i didnt see it happen.

[Auxin]

Can I get a little confirmation on if I'm correctly ascribing cuzcoensoid status to this group?

Bad pic, I know, but the spination pattern seems virtually identical to the pic The_Dude posted with several medium length spines and one upward pointing very long spine per areole, except in these the spines are brownish-straw color in most instances.

You can probably guess the reason for my interest

[Flip]

It's about 5 am here in the states

so I'm both a bit tired and rusty.

Since I've been gone from the forums around here for a few years

things have certainly developed

Yes, I think it's safe to say that you snow covered plants

are safe to be called Cuzonoid.

I've got "KK242" seed from 96 and a second batch from 98

both sourced from OTJ.

The 96 batch came up what we are calling "cuzoensis"

with some variations between individuals

MS Smith ID a few at the time as what he then called

the classic KK242.

The 98 seed was all over the place

T/E Bridg, Peru, and "?" Bridgoids

I'll get some images up of the collection if anyone is interested

I'm sure that I've got some nice ones in there but I'm most upset

by the decade plus of care I've put into these things only to hear

that on average some are likely to be less then what was hoped.

Here's some picts of the lot when they were younger

(you may have seen some of them them before)

This one mike ID as T. Cuzo 5 years ago.

looks a lot like by first and second plant image.