mutant Posted January 16, 2011 I had to start such a thread, lol! I am not saying anything else for now, I have been told that these are cuzcoids: 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 solomon Posted January 16, 2011 Are spines darker at the base like this usually considered cuzco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mac Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) im no expert but after studying a couple of my own plants, pics & descriptions online here are my thoughts Not just the darkness but also the thickness length arrangement & taper of the spine at the base. V notching skin appearance & texture would be other things to look for Edited January 17, 2011 by mac 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 tripsis Posted January 17, 2011 Alright, I must agree, cuzcos are beautiful Mutant. Both yours and Mac's look like typical cuzcoensis to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 solomon Posted January 17, 2011 thanks for the pics mac. beautiful plant you have there Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 san p Posted January 17, 2011 is the "S" line formed between the ribs another tool to help i.d cuzco. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 solomon Posted January 17, 2011 all the ones i've seen have had it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted January 17, 2011 Yup. Trichocereus cuscoensis.... It looks like the cacti in the hills outside Cusco, Peru, I'd know... cause I've seen 'em in their natural habitat! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mr b.caapi Posted January 17, 2011 Yup. Trichocereus cuscoensis.... It looks like the cacti in the hills outside Cusco, Peru, I'd know... cause I've seen 'em in their natural habitat! Ok, shall we all bow down now? or should we wait till the pipe band gets here? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Lol Teotz is such a cheap show off! Hey Teotz, show off your own cuzcoid Come on bring on your cuzcoid photos, along with what you think consists of a cuzco and why you consider your cactus as such. Edited January 17, 2011 by mutant 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mac Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) ^^^^^^ The large main central one upward & one downward spine is another thing i have noticed, spines are very delicate while growing & easily knocked off, once they age & whiten slightly they are another story Also notice a slight resemblance to my despined Browningia hertlingiana behind it in my second pic Edited January 17, 2011 by mac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 bℓσωηG Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) recieved as gnosis recieved as kk 2151 macrogonus ( im not that dense fark) recieved as kk 242 all i suspect as being cuzcoids mac that one of yours is a beauty!....personally i have nothing against these cacti , but annoys me the mislabeling perpetrated to make a buck? .. Edited January 17, 2011 by blowng Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mac Posted January 17, 2011 No i do love the look of them but i picked my cuzco up as a replacement for some bridgesii that arrived hollow with rot I didnt get a reply when i asked if i was sent cuzcoensis by mistake (ebay ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) mac , a browningia? Sweat! I would love to see a photo of her! I have been wanting to get one of these. So we got some cuzcoID factors for now: 1) curly rib formation between two consecutive areoles, as seen in all three blowng pix. 2) spines: way fatter in the base and more dark coloured towards the base, usually yellow, accompanied by one or two smaller but still biggy spines of the same type [with fattened bases]. Becoming whitish with age 3) Flattened V notch is another thing I noted. I think this is a nice thread to report monkeys or otherwise animals finding such cuzcoid clones interesting in some way other than looks - but remember to be discreet. Blowng was it you who also had Steve or not? Edited January 17, 2011 by mutant 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 bℓσωηG Posted January 17, 2011 Blowng was it you who also had Steve or not? nope not me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mac Posted January 17, 2011 think this is ok to mention in the thread as i thought it may be why HHH uses prickly pear in their caktus powder that was mentioned early last year It may also be pointed out that the alkaloid-rich T. cuzcoensis contained 3-methoxytyramine as the predominant alkaloid 3-Methoxytyramine From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 3-Methoxytyramine 3-Methoxytyramine (3-MT), also known as 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenethylamine, is a metabolite of the neurotransmitter dopamine formed by the introduction of a methyl group to dopamine by the enzyme catechol-O-methyl transferase (COMT). 3-MT can be further metabolized by the enzyme monoamine oxidase (MAO) to form homovanillic acid (HVA), which is then typically excreted in the urine. 3-Methoxytyramine is also naturally found in the prickly pear (genus Opuntia).[1] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 C_T Posted January 17, 2011 ok so what about this one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) definately photoshopped. begins as a cuzco and turns up to be a pachanoid/short spined peruv hey, on serious note beautiful cuzcos everyone, blow I love the glaucousness! Edited January 17, 2011 by mutant 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 C_T Posted January 17, 2011 umm, no definitely not photoshopped, its in my possession!!! I'm showing how the same cacti grown in 2 different conditions can give different characteristics... It was sold as peruvianus, id'd as cuzco based on spines, and notching (before the new growth). Guess i'm trying to show you can't id every cacti properly without knowing the growing conditions, and every condition affects spine length and colour... I will take more photo's when i get home if you wish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 bℓσωηG Posted January 17, 2011 C_T , from reading the posts by M S Smith, I would definitely say its also is a cuzcoid, and now i can see why M S Smith lumps T.knuthianus in the same catagory as T.cuzcoensis. That looks half cuzco, half knuthianus. ... given some full sun you should see it put out some bigger spines at the top again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 .dg Posted January 18, 2011 Yup. Trichocereus cuscoensis.... It looks like the cacti in the hills outside Cusco, Peru, I'd know... cause I've seen 'em in their natural habitat! did you ever post pictures of your trip? lets see it, not hear it!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) I do have tons of pics.... I MIGHT upload some of them... one day... Edited January 19, 2011 by Teotzlcoatl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted January 18, 2011 C_T you got pawned . lulz! I was just joking. yep this is very important knowing growing conditions. This plant you showed looks like it was moved to a place of little or no direct sun from where it used to be and it was transformed from a fatty 'cuzco' to a thinner 'pachanoid/shorspined peruv' lol - I guess sometimes my humoar is intendedly 4dimentional hey is knuthianus this awesome tubercled trichocereus? doesn really look like cuzcos - deserve a separate name at least for the phenotype in my eyes 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 M S Smith Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) Hey blowng, I noticed the similarity of T. knuthianus to T. cuzcoensis some time ago. I also noticed some similarity between these two and T. tarmaensis, only to find that Ritter considers T. knuthianus and T. tarmaensis to be synonymous. I swear that in one of my reference books someone says T. knuthianus and T. cuzcoensis are also synonymous, but I can't seem to find it. I think they are all the same variable species, sort of like I would say T. santaensis and T. pallarensis are both variables of the same grouping that T. pachanoi falls into. I'm a "clumper" not a "splitter" and don't think that some otherwise minor traits undo T. knuthianus being a variety of T. cuzcoensis, but all the same, like mutant I don't think it would be valuable to stop using the name T. knuthianus. I might note though that the T. knuthianus that I see in Australia is not the same as the one sold by Sacred Succulents which is much more similar to the T. cuzcoensis of Cuzco. I do have tons of pics but I figured it was either put them on facebook or the forums, not both... guess which one I choose? I MIGHT upload some of them... one day... Ha ha ha ha ha! ~Michael~ Edited January 18, 2011 by M S Smith 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Teotzlcoatl Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) ...edit naughty Teo! Edited January 19, 2011 by Teotzlcoatl 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 M S Smith Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) O fuck you Smith, anybody that wants to see it PM me. Ya I was with them in Cusco, and it IS Cusco, I was there in the city, that is what THEIR street signs say- CUSCO, not Cuzco. Boy, you really are a cretin aren't you; such invective should have you banned. Apparently you are unaware that there are alternate spellings of both cities and countries in other languages that are proper regardless of a street sign. You're no grammarian yourself considering that you misspelled the way they spell Peru in Perú. ~Michael~ Edited January 19, 2011 by M S Smith 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
I had to start such a thread, lol!
I am not saying anything else for now, I have been told that these are cuzcoids:
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites