ID request for cacti saved from Bunnings,

[tripsis]

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.

[Chiral]

This plant looks like Eilleen to me...is it...?

I agree that bridgesii can have heaps and heaps of spines or some can have hardly any that simply fall off if you brush them..even when all the plants are from the same seed stock you can have this variation.

[paradox]

yeah looks A LOT like eileen. not 100% sure though. def bridgesii. i pilfered that pic from k. trout

[Illustro]

I think bit may be onto something, now that i look closer i do see some very mild peruvian/cuzco traits.. But that is all just personal interpretation isn't it really..

BUT! I can say with 100% confidence that those cacti of tripsis are predominantly T. bridgesii. There is no f'n way at all those are KK242 or any peruvian/cuzco breed!

Everything about them indicates T. bridgesii - bar those minor little variations.

The problem here is simply the Trichocereus genus and the fact that the species that make it up are so easily cross bred - and can have the most wild of variations from seed that there is no true definitive species in the Trichocerus genus. All the species should all be broken down further into subspecies.

Bit: What you describe as a T. bridgesii, could in fact just be some subspecies that branched from the original root specie some time ago. You really never know..

I have T. bridgesii that look the perfect example of a bridgesii, bright blue, thin stems with 1-3 erratically angled spines per aerole - but down low with all the new pups they are producing up to 8 spines per aerole in a regular formation. Which you would say means it is not a bridgesii, well i'm afraid this is just the nature of genetics..

Natural variation and natural hybridization means these species are almost impossible to accurately define. The only way this whole genus can be properly organized is an intensive and thorough gene mapping with geographical referencing.

Until then... Meh?

[paradox]

yeah good post sol. for the sake of limiting confusion though plants with distinct characteristics are given specific names. to exclude all plants with more than 4 spines per areole from the bridgesii label even if they look exactly like bridgesii would further confuse things in a way that i would see as pointless. it's likely that all plants in the 'san pedro' group are the same species with distinct morphological characteristics from being grown in distinct geographical locations over thousands of years.

i feel that all the plants in this group have a lot of traits in common & when they're seedlings those traits are doubley hard to distinguish but from my experience growing 'bridgesii' seedling into mature plants i can say that IMO i am certain those seedlings will grow into plants which will not fit any other discription but bridgesii. call them hybrids if you will. call every single plant in this group a hybrid & you'd probably be right, but the labels are there to group these things into definable groups & to simplify matters. so if a plant grows up to fit perfectly with your notion of bridgesii (remembering the high amount of variation within the 'species') i think it would be pointlessly confusing to call it anything else.

[bit]

Yeah, good post SV

Living over here in NZ we're probably more limited in the genetics of Bridgesii that we come across. There is not much variation in all the bridge plant's I've seen.

To answer the question about growing from seed to mature, I have a seed grown plant from Faslimy which stands around 2m tall, and a few others around 1m. Also from the same seed batch around 20 seedlings pushing 12" now, so yeah, I'm pretty familiar with them at all stages of life. None of my seedlings look anything like the ones in the first post - at all. And neither do the bridge seedlings I've picked up from bunnings over here.

As you obviously do xodarap, I spend a good deal of time tending and hanging out with my plants. In doing so you get a really good understanding of their character, which a photo never really captures totally. So I'm basing my opinion on your photo and my limited exposure to the gene pool, when I say I wouldn't be comfortable calling your plant a pure bridge. I can see the similarities to my plants, but also many differences.

[tripsis]

After having a close look at both cacti, they actually seem to have mostly 7 spines per areole, 3 in the centre and two to each side. Does that make accurate identification any easier?

[bit]

After having a close look at both cacti, they actually seem to have mostly 7 spines per areole, 3 in the centre and two to each side. Does that make accurate identification any easier?

That means the areole layout is a lot closer to peruvianus, than bridgesii - at least in my corner of the world.

I did venture outside in the rain (it's been raining for a week, and started snowing down country.. this is supposed to be spring?), to have a look at my biggest bridgesii - I found about one areole in 20 has 5 spines, contrary to what I said above. But it is definitely the exception rather than the norm. Most areole have 1-3 spines.

[Illustro]

People tend to make a lot of assumptions in this field, fuck i know i do all the time.

To me, if we are going to start describing and defining certain cacti species and what-not the original description of the species IS the real and only description of the species - the first cactus under that species to be described by a botanist IS the true definer. If someone finds a different variety later on, they can call it bridgesii - fine. But they must make it a subspecies, not try to label it as a normal bridgesii. If they don't do this it will just create confusion and incredible amounts of misinformation.

So, if T. bridgesii is going to be described and classified. It can only be described from its original documentation by Britton & Rose, which says:

Britton & Rose's The Cactaceae

6. Trichocereus bridgesii (Salm-Dyck).

Description:

Tall, 2 to 5 meters high, more or less branching, pale green, a little glaucous; branches 1 to 1.5 dm in diameter, 4 to 8-ribbed; ribs obtuse, separated by broad but shallow intervals; areoles large, about 2 cm apart; spines 2 to 6, yellowish, acicular to subulate, very unequal, sometimes 10 cm long, not swollen at base; flowers large, 18 cm long; flower-tube 5 to 6 cm long; throat broad; inner perianth-segments oblong, perhaps white, 5 to 6 cm long; scales on ovary and flower-tube small, sometimes only 3 to 4 mm long, scattered, bearing numerous hairs in their axils; fruit scaly, long-hairy, 5 to 6 cm long.

Distribution: About La Paz, Bolivia, where it is frequently grown as a hedge plant or placed on the tops of walls for the protection of gardens.

As you can see that is different to what you assumed a true bridgesii is meant to look, but it does support your argument over the basal lobe on the spines indicating another species or hybrid. But when you consider the impact environmental factors can have on the phenotypes, it makes it a lot harder to accurately describe and distinguish species.

When cacti experience extensive heat and sun shine, it is well documented that they grow more spines than usual and create thicker epidermal wax layers. When they are 'babied' they tend to grow less spines and wax and to allot more resources to growth than defensive mechanisms. When i first got my bridgesii they had been previously grown in pretty mild conditions, with plenty of water. I don't think i saw any aeroles with more than 4 spines, now after sparse waterings and full sun combined with excessive heat (usually 35'C to 45'C) they have started to grow more spines, which are alot thicker and harder than the previous ones plus they bluing color is becoming more prominent. A clear indication of the phenotypical adjustment to the environmental conditions.

Edited October 4, 2009 by solvo.vestri

[tripsis]

Hi SV, thanks for the excerpt with the bridgesii description. Where did you get it from? That's the sort of thing I'd like to study some more to get a feel for the diffeent species.

Somehow I doubt that cacti from Hamilton's would be exposed to many adverse conditions. They always end up in retail stores in pretty good condition, so it seems unlikely they would be exposed to excessive sunshine and heat, causing them to increase their defense mechanisms.

My impression of bridgesii vs. peruvianus, at least in one phenotypical aspect, is that bridgesii are skinnier relative to their height. Is that incorrect? That is one factor that made me think they were bridgesii at first. The peruvianus I've seen always tend to be stouter and their spination less random.

[incognito]

xodarap, i have the bridgesii in your pic planted in my cactus garden.

i got it from bunnings as well. Ive labelled it 'red-spined bridgesii' on recommendation from apothecary last time he payed a visit.i bought it from orange bunnings a good 5 years ago. its a sweet bridg, looking forward to one day checking out its profile.

[Illustro]

I just googled it lol. I suspected that bridgesii had been first described by Britton & Rose so i just googled: "bridgesii britton rose".

And your right about the differences (but those are actually a genotypical variations btw ) bridgesii are by far the skinniest Trichocereus species i have come across personally. I know there is a species which i think is thinner but i cant bring it to mind right now. So yeah, bridgesii generally are very skinny - there is a some variant going around that is much fatter with shorter spines - but i highly suspect hybridization. And the spines do tend to go in random directions with some varieties, but then again some varieties have relatively uniform spine formations (usually the long spined varieties).

[tripsis]

Ha! Google comes to the fore once again. Knowing that Britton and Rose decribed it no doubt helped.

Yes, you are right, those are genotypical differences. They still have different phenotypes, but that is due to their underlying genotypes.

[ballzac]

I never thought I'd see a thread arguing about whether a plant should be IDed as bridgesii or cuzcoensis, as they are strikingly different species, and somehow this has become one of the more interesting threads in the cactus section

I think one thing that needs to be considered in the description of a species is alkaloid profile. Although that is clearly more of interest to ethnobotanists than to regular cactophiles. Given that bridgesii and cuzcoensis are generally considered to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, determination of potency would be pretty solid evidence IM(lay)O. Well, even if it was legal to do so, the seedlings are clearly too young to accurately determine what the alkaloid profile/content of a mature specimen would look like, and by the time they are mature, it will be much clearer what species it is by eye anyway.

I think I had a point, but I've lost it...lol. Anyway, I'm enjoying reading all the intelligent discussion that this thread has generated.

[bit]

Heh, true that ballzac.

I will watch with interest how these plants turn out over the next couple of years, if tripsis would be so kind as to keep us up to date.

I would guess they turn out like xodarap's one, which still doesn't look quite right to me, but I'm not used to the variation as I've said before.

[paradox]

that pic i posted of my plant is crap, it was taken about three years ago, that particular plant has come along really beautifully, just such a gorgeous multi branched bridge. it's actually one of my favourites in my whole collection & that old pic i posted just looks crap. yeah incog i love those hamiltons bridgesii's (i'm sorry i couldn't really even call these plants hybrids even though peoples have made some good points in this thread) i've picked up heaps over the years, some from bunnings some from hamiltons directly. the reason i've vehemently defended tripsis' seedlings as bridgesii here is cause i've seen heaps of these hamiltons bridgesii's & i really feel i'd know them anywhere. i've seen them again & again over the years & they are definitely the same genes from the same parents from hamiltons & i've seen them grow up again & again also.

i admittedly haven't spent a great deal of time counting spines on my bridges & i can't varify right now because my collection is currently happily residing at my folks place. but i really don't think 5-7 spines is very uncommon for bridgesii (at least these ones in my location, which may be hybrids, but if they are hybrids they only have a very very tiny amount of non bridge genes.....phew, this is getting silly )

i have no doubt at all that tripsis' seedlings are from the same parental plants & therefore the same genes as my plant that i mentioned above, so when i go to my folks place & i think i'll be going very soon, i'll get some pics of that plant (& others) for interests sake i haven't seen my collection since the start of winter so i'm just hoping there wasn't any serious frost casualties. my folks seem to think alls well though, so should be good

[tripsis]

I will watch with interest how these plants turn out over the next couple of years, if tripsis would be so kind as to keep us up to date.

For sure. I like grow logs and updates as much as the next person, so would be happy to keep you posted of their development. I'm interested to hear opinions on them when they're older. This has been a really informative thread so far, it's managed to incite a lot of interesting discussion.

[paradox]

as others have said tripsis' second seedling shows much more bridgeXcuzco like traits than the first which is the one i've been rabbiting on about

[mutant]

This is a great thread, keep it up , and keep it updated. One thing's for sure, I will be counting my bridge's spine-per-areole soon

Edited October 6, 2009 by mutant

[paradox]

i've just been giving my cacti a some much needed love & checking out all my hamiltons 'bridgesii's' & the variation in them is really interesting. they're all seed grown, i don't really exactly know the parentage of them but it's clear that at some point in their ancestry they've picked up some cuzcoensis/peruvianus genes. the vast majority of these plants show very strong bridgesii traits with barly even a trace of a trace of cuzcoensis-like traits but one in every 10 or so definitely show their cuzcoensis genes very clearly. so all due cred to bit

there is one young plant in particular that i have that has about 7-8 spines per areole & on a lot of areoles definitely shows a large central spine which is generally not a bridgesii thing.

i'm pretty sure all these young plants are born from the same parental stock, so imo a likely kind of scenario would be something like one of the grandparents or maybe great grandparents of the parents of these seedlings was a cuzco or peruvianus X bredigesii which has then been bred with more straight-up bridesii etc so the genes seem to be very much predominantly bridgesii with a tiny amount of cuzco showing through & an occasional throwback which shows the cuzco genes much more strongly.

pics soonish

[ballzac]

Just had a look at all my bridgesiis. All the immature growth, both the growth at the bottom of a branch and the new growth at the top, has many spines per areole. Usually eight, on one particular variety. New growth on my Eileen has seven spines per areole. I have a bridgesii that is mostly single spined, and it has mostly three spines per areole on newer growth.

[paradox]

yeah i've noticed the same thing with new growth on bridgesii ^^^ seedlings i've found in particular have many more spines per areole then the same plant when mature

[tripsis]

So then if new growth has more spines than older growth and seedlings more than mature plants, this suggests that they lose spines over time, right? If this is the case, is counting spines really a good way of identifying species?

Also, are the yellower spines on my second plant what allies it more closely with cuzcoensis than the first plant?

[paradox]

Also, are the yellower spines on my second plant what allies it more closely with cuzcoensis than the first plant?

nope, bridgesii is well known to often have beautiful big yellow spines on new growth.

it's more just the general morphology of that plant & the areole's themselves rather than the spines imo. nothing very quantitative....

this thread has raised some interesting points & i think everyone has had some very pertinent things to say but as has been said, accurate ID of trichocereus in general (& especially those in the 'san pedro' group) let alone seedlings can be pretty humorous

[mac]

So then if new growth has more spines than older growth and seedlings more than mature plants, this suggests that they lose spines over time, right? If this is the case, is counting spines really a good way of identifying species?

Also, are the yellower spines on my second plant what allies it more closely with cuzcoensis than the first plant?

Just my observations & what i have read & learned in the past 10-12 months

The areole is much larger on a cuzo & you will notice the spine base looks dark & much fatter or swollen & a very fresh green tinge to new spines , also the spines on my cuzo are very delicate & easily knocked off , as well as the shape & the ribs, prominent notching above the areole in older plants

i think we should have a dedicated cuzcoensis ID Thread, it may help

Edited October 8, 2009 by mac

[Chiral]

This thread is soooo bazaar...1072 views ..someone bought a couple of Bridgesii from Bunnibgs that are from hamiltons and now we have this humongous long ass thread about Cuzcoensis and kk's...LOL...this place is insane sometimes...keep up the good work.

for what it's worth all those cactus he bought from bunnings are simply little bridgesii seedlings...Me and Mind Expansion went out there one day and they literally have tens of thousands of them in little blue pots with red gravel..all seed grown bridgesii...and thats all there is to it ...I bought half a dozen of them myself..they all look slightly different now that they have grown a bit but they are still the same cactus as when I bought them...Bridgesii....the owners will tell you so as well..they'd prolly wet them selves reading this thread.