Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
tripsis

ID request for cacti saved from Bunnings,

Question

Picked up a couple of cacti from Bunning today, one is a Trich for sure, the other I'm not sure about.

Can anyone ID what species they are?

Cactus 1:

post-6300-1254456612_thumb.jpg

post-6300-1254456623_thumb.jpg

post-6300-1254456633_thumb.jpg

Cactus 2:

post-6300-1254456642_thumb.jpg

post-6300-1254456650_thumb.jpg

post-6300-1254456659_thumb.jpg

Thanks everyone. :)

DSC04850.jpg

DSC04851.jpg

DSC04852.jpg

DSC04853.jpg

DSC04854.jpg

DSC04855.jpg

DSC04850.jpg

DSC04851.jpg

DSC04852.jpg

DSC04853.jpg

DSC04854.jpg

DSC04855.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I'd say they're both bridgesii, although I'm usually wrong when it come to babies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This is exactly what I was hoping. But I'm yet to learn where the delineations lie regarding differences with spination, etc. There were two like the first one and one like the second. I noticed the second has different form and many spines up the top so thought it may be something else.

Edited by tripsis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yes, it does look quite different to the first one. I am going mainly on the fact that it looks more like bridgesii than anything else I can think of. There's always the chance it is a hybrid though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Those look like some nice Trichocereus bridgesii!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

To my eyes the two cacti's areoles seem differently arranged.

I'd say the fiirst one is possibly a bridge, the second one is it is likely to be a peruvianoid of some kind....

of course I may be wildly off the mark...

Edited by Stitches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I can see where they could be a bridgesii but honesty I think they're too young to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

How old do they need to be before accurate identification can be made?

Also, what else could they be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

from experience of buying seedlings from bunnings over the years i'd say they are both almost certainly bridgesii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Haha nice, they are both definitely bridgesii - the variance is just natural. I have about 100 bridgesii seedlings at about 1yo - even as little seedlings the variance can be huge.

Bunnings are really good for cacti, i have found some pretty sweet specimens there. There is always a few trichs of differing species there every time i visit.

Heres my bunnings scores, i have had them for a year just about to the day now. They were no taller than 5 inches when i got them, they have been loving the full sun and heat and achieved some amazing growth.

T. macrogonus, maybe? It looks quite similar to my other macro.

A definite T. peruvianus. Has interesting translucent pink and caramel spines.

A define T. scopulicola.

Good luck :]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Awesome, thanks for everyone's help.

Nice Bunnings catches there solvo! The scop is especially nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

nice healthy Bridgesii there!!! Man i wish bunnings in WA would sell bridgesii's, the best thing ive found at WA bunnings is a spach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
A definite T. peruvianus. Has interesting translucent pink and caramel spines.

 

Looks to be a very healthy Trichocereus cuzcoensis & love the nice fat healthy lil scop

Edited by mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Jeepers.

Sorry to dissapoint tripsis, but those are not bridgesii, they are both kk242, as is the peruvianus posted by s.v

IMG_0306.jpg

Edited by bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
T. macrogonus, maybe? It looks quite similar to my other macro.

That is T. peruvianus.

A definite T. peruvianus. Has interesting translucent pink and caramel spines.

Nope that is T. cuzcoensis.

A define T. scopulicola.

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Jeepers.

Sorry to dissapoint tripsis, but those are not bridgesii, they are both kk242, as is the peruvianus posted by s.v

IMG_0306.jpg

What makes you say that?

So cuzcoensis or peruvianus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

bit i've bought quite a few seedlings from bunnings & a number of other places over the years which looked exactly like those two plants & every single one of them grew up to be a beautiful big bridgesii

if they don't look like this in about a year i'll eat my shoe

gallery_2376_3_37336.jpg

Edited by xodarap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well, I sure hope it doesn't come to that then! :P

That's a fatty in the background there. What species is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

post-5307-1254461061_thumb.jpg

I agree with Bit...kk242

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
post-5307-1254461061_thumb.jpg

I agree with Bit...kk242

the one in that pick is def kk 242, but i'd put money on tripsis' seedlings as bridgesii & eat my shoe & my hat. & my shoe & my hat smell like shit i assure you

edit: the fat one in the background is a recently planted cutting from some kind of peruvianoid. that pick was taken about 3 years ago btw

Edited by xodarap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
bit i've bought quite a few seedlings from bunnings & a number of other places over the years which looked exactly like those two plants & every single one of them grew up to be a beautiful big bridgesii

if they don't look like this in about a year i'll eat my shoe

gallery_2376_3_37336.jpg

No bridgesii of mine (and I have about 20) has more than 4 spines per areole, nor spines which are swolen at the base. Plus the skin texture is wrong for bridgesii. If yours is thus, then it is a hybrid (which is no surpise from bunnings).

I would definitely not call the plant in your picture bridgesii. It looks like a hybrid to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

have another look man the most spines per areole in tripsis' seedling is 4, which is very common in most of my bridgesii.

the plant i have pictured i believe is not a hybrid as it fits pretty much perfectly with every other bridgesii i've seen & i'm almost certain every bridgesii i've seen is not a hybrid.

i wouldn't be surprised if bunnings did have many hybrid trichs but after seeing a lot of bunnings seedlings which look exactly like tripsis' grow into big healthy plants which perfectly fit the bridgesii description i couldn't call them anything else. MOST definitely not kk 242 IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
have another look man the most spines per areole in tripsis' seedling is 4, which is very common in most of my bridgesii.

the plant i have pictured i believe is not a hybrid as it fits pretty much perfectly with every other bridgesii i've seen & i'm almost certain every bridgesii i've seen is not a hybrid.

i wouldn't be surprised if bunnings did have many hybrid trichs but after seeing a lot of bunnings seedlings which look exactly like tripsis' grow into big healthy plants which perfectly fit the bridgesii description i couldn't call them anything else. MOST definitely not kk 242 IMO

We seem to count differently. Both his plants have some areoles with 5 spines, both swolen at the base.

This, is bridgesii:

_MG_9481web.jpg

_MG_7722web.jpg

Edited by bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hmmm, it's interesting learning what the defining features are for each species.

So if what I have are not actually bridgesii, but are actually KK242/peruvianus/cuzcoensis, would they likely be active? I know peruvianus is, but I've read differing things with cuzcoensis and I have no idea about KK242. Is KK242 actually peruvianus or cuzcoensis (or something else altogether)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

but so is this which clearly has areoles with five spines (not my pics)

Trichocereus_bridgesii_810.jpg

and this for that matter

T_bridgesii_RS0005_Trout_12wide72dpi.jpg

in my experience while 3-4 spines is most common, five spines per areole is not that uncommon in bridgesii & i have well over 20 plants from many different locations around australia.

really though i think it's a pointless debate as the variance in the species is pretty big. i just wonder if you have ever grown bridgesii from seed or young seedlings to a mature plant, cause i have quite a few times & i simply couldn't call tripsis' seedlings anything but bridgesii. possibly bridgesii hybrids but by the looks of them improbable if you ask me.

edit: also most trich you find in bunnings in australia (& they almost always have those aqua coloured 3 inch pots) come from hamiltons cacti nursery in western sydney which i've visited & talked to the owners.

Edited by xodarap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

My thoughts would be that you are unlikely to find a cuzcoensis or peruvianus with such long spines at that size. The 'randomness' of orientation of spines also suggest bridgesii, although the second one shows less of this characteristic, and this can also be cause by coming into contact with other objects and getting 'bent'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×