Trichocereus cuzcoensis

[mutant]

I had to start such a thread, lol!

I am not saying anything else for now, I have been told that these are cuzcoids:

[2meke]

true thanks, quite a turn in events

in that case cuzco's are sick! this is a new favourite of mine. very unique

[mutant]

I agree with blowng and Teotz.

and yeah, they are very pretty

[Gunter]

the tarma plants seem to be intermediate between the cuzco group and the fat blue peru group, both in terms of morphology and activity

[M S Smith]

the tarma plants seem to be intermediate between the cuzco group and the fat blue peru group, both in terms of morphology and activity

 

I'd tend to agree in regards to morphology, but I can't say much about alkaloid composition as I am unmindful of any studies or usage, but would add that location also would seem to support intermediary status, at least in regards to T. tarmaensis also being on the eastern side of the continental divide as T. cuzcoensis. This while T. peruvianus is on the western side of the divide.

Here my own T. tarmaensis, or did I get it as T. peruvianus v. tarma...I can't remember (winter in the northern hemisphere always seems to make me forget about cactus).

Here's a plant growing in Tarma.

~Michael~

[mutant]

Archaea do you have any pics of plants like you say?

I can see not much cuzco in that last Michaels plant photo, and then again, the wild plant is another thing, that , heh, it looks like a cuzco, doesn't it? But plants in the wild are expected to be unlike 80 cm cuts grown with care

Edited February 18, 2011 by mutant

[Gunter]

in the plant above the following traits relate to the cuzco alleles

it is narrower than a typical fat blue

and the spine traits are slightly different as well

it is a bit more tuberculate as well, this is in the side profile where it is 'stepped'

in addition the plant grows upright, a cuzco trait but not something typical with the fat blues

here:

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9902&st=0&p=87013&hl=tarma&fromsearch=1entry87013

Edited February 18, 2011 by Archaea

[mutant]

thanks, even though I did not understand the last comment on upright growth. Don't they all grow upright?

[Gunter]

no they don't, fat blue peruvianus tend to grow prostrate, as do some hybrids with them and other forms

this is true for real peruvianus and here is an example:

http://www.bpcfieldcourses.com/BPC%20Field%20Course/photos%20for%20BPC%20travel%20web/Peru/Lima%20Dept/14%20Trichocereus%20peruvianus,%20Matucana.JPG

it is a trait common to true peruvianus that is virtually absent in all other forms

young plants and intermediates that resemble peruvianus grow upright, but it is a definitive trait for peruvianus, although this is not well known by many growers of horticultural forms

[Teotzlcoatl]

Archaea is that one of the B.P.C. group's pictures from the 2009 expedition?

[Gunter]

Yes.

[mutant]

I see, thanks. Doesn't the sausage plant { a pachanoi ?} also grow prostrate?

[Gunter]

i am unfamilair with that plant, so i don't know, i can take your word for it if you tell me it does

but when i searched the board for that name this is what i found:

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=19398

and it doesn't look like a pachanoi at all to me

having spoken with people who have explored the region where San Pedro type plants grow and have been cultivated for thousands of years, prostrate growth is said to be exclusive to T peruvianus

horticultural specimens can be exceptions to this observation, but are not good examples of what occurs in the region where they hail from

[M S Smith]

There are plenty of fully erect "real" T. peruvianus. Like this one in Peru from Dept Lima, Huarochiri, San Jeronimo de Surco, Catarata de Huanano. (Sorry about the huge photo size, but it's good for the detail.)

~Michael~

[Gunter]

it looks like a pachanoi peruvianus intermediate to me

[M S Smith]

Funny, the plants in post #24 here look much more like intermediates to me.

~Michael~

[Gunter]

i've come to learn that some plants that look very close to the KK242 cuzco types, but which have longer central spines on average (to around 10cm or 4 inches) which have much less of taper to them, as in they are more needle shaped, are distinct from cuzconoid material, are always upright and can grow much thicker when mature. They do however tend to resemble the cuzconoid type phenotypes associated with KK242.

among other distinctions, they have puffy areoles with grey(er) felt, when young they have many spines, but on mature growth there are fewer radial spines, spines which tend to be a bit more yellow/brown colored, there are also fewer centrals

when young they are almost indistinguishable from the kk242 cuzco type material and can be mistaken for them fairly easily by people with a decent amount of experience with the plants, however they are totally distinct from peruvianoid material like IcarosDNA, or Los Genteles, etc

i think that this form is allied to what has been called: T. puquiensis

http://trout.yage.net/sc/Backeberg_1956_puquiensis_English.html

Differs from T. cuzcoensis by having more ribs, longer central spines, bases not swollen

Edited April 7, 2011 by Archaea