tripsis Posted October 2, 2009 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: Cactus 2: Thanks everyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 ballzac Posted October 2, 2009 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 tripsis Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) 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 October 2, 2009 by tripsis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 ballzac Posted October 2, 2009 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 Teotzlcoatl Posted October 2, 2009 Those look like some nice Trichocereus bridgesii! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Xenodimensional Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) 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 October 2, 2009 by Stitches Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 KanJe Posted October 2, 2009 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 tripsis Posted October 2, 2009 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 paradox Posted October 2, 2009 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 Illustro Posted October 2, 2009 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 tripsis Posted October 2, 2009 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 Bush Turkey Posted October 2, 2009 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 mac Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) 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 October 2, 2009 by mac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 bit Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) Jeepers. Sorry to dissapoint tripsis, but those are not bridgesii, they are both kk242, as is the peruvianus posted by s.v Edited October 2, 2009 by bit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted October 2, 2009 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 tripsis Posted October 3, 2009 Jeepers.Sorry to dissapoint tripsis, but those are not bridgesii, they are both kk242, as is the peruvianus posted by s.v What makes you say that? So cuzcoensis or peruvianus? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 paradox Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) 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 Edited October 3, 2009 by xodarap Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 tripsis Posted October 3, 2009 Well, I sure hope it doesn't come to that then! That's a fatty in the background there. What species is that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Chiral Posted October 3, 2009 I agree with Bit...kk242 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 paradox Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) 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 October 3, 2009 by xodarap Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 bit Posted October 3, 2009 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 bridgesiiif they don't look like this in about a year i'll eat my shoe 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 paradox Posted October 3, 2009 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 bit Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) 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: Edited October 3, 2009 by bit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 tripsis Posted October 3, 2009 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 paradox Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) but so is this which clearly has areoles with five spines (not my pics) and this for that matter 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 October 8, 2009 by xodarap Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 ballzac Posted October 3, 2009 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
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:
Cactus 2:
Thanks everyone.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites