Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
bogfrog

what could this be?

Question

this cactus is now deceased thanks to a particularly infectious rot but there is a mega mother plant still alive

i thought at the time maybe a pascana or tersheckii because of the sheer size and this was the only pup from a huge plant traveling up 3 stories of the side of a building

IMG_0390

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

it looks akin to werdermannianus type to me

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

whatever it is i want one! :drool2:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Agreed :drool2: I love those chunky saguaro-like tricho's. As for what it is exactly im not sure... too busy drooling :lol: but it looks like werdermannianus - i think terscheckii and pascana tend to have more golden/yellow spines

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I agree with Archaea. That's a amazing looking cactus! Would love one like that. So damned fat!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

it really was a beast ae i was sad to see it go! we tried cutting off the rot again and again and then finally thought we had beat it when we realised the tip was rotten too :(

hopefully we will get more of it as a friend has been told he is aloud it but it will be mission impossible removing it.

chunkiest cactus i have seen so far

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

well if I am getting it right with wendermanianus, this is not one, it's rather terscheckii I would say.

the more I see it the more sure I am it's not wendermanianus and it looks typically terscheckii

Huge!!

PS:

I think terscheckii and pascana tend to have more golden/yellow spines

they are golden/yellow on the tip :wink:

terschecki all the way.

I think more people should grow terschekiis and wendermanianus and pasacanas and the like. Then send them all to me, in greece to put in the ground!! :P

Edited by mutant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

i believe that werdermannianus is a name applied to two types of forms, one is in the validus complex and the other is very much terscheckii ike

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well, if that is true I am obviously referring to the other form.

So, do you have a photo to show us the phenotype that looks like terschecki but is actually wendermanianus? How do you tell them apart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This looks a lot like the Trichocereus Werdermannianus i had a few years ago. But I am convinced, werdermannianus is just another very similar variant of Trichocereus Terscheckii. It very difficult to differenciate between the pascanoid Trichocereus species which include Terscheckii, Werdermannianus, Pascana and Validus. Differences are mostly pretty small, like the position of the flower for example. Plus there are some intermediates that make it very hard to ID them. But its definately a very nice and impressive plant. Especially in the wild. bye Eg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

i too believe that werd intergrades into terscheckii and that terscheckii intergrades into pasacana

i believe that one form of terscheckii may just be a stable hybrid population of validus X pasacana

this actually pertains to my theories about form and ancestry, you see pasacana is hordenine rich, while validus is mesc rich and tersheckii (one form, there is more than one form of tersch) contains trichocereine, which is a molecule perfectly intermediate between hordenine and mescaline, it has the nn-dimethyl group of hordenine and the 3,4,5 trimethoxy group of mesc and like both is a PEA

i do not have any photographs on hand for the topic, but can say that in a lot of cases i don't consider spine color to be a particularly meaningful trait with any of these plants, but do consider spines to be meaningful in their arrangement, shape and range of variation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

What I have as wendermanianus , and it seems right and according with photos I have seen, is totally different from what I have got, seen and read about what is a terscheckii. "pretty small differences" ??? you might not ever have had a wendermanianus then...

Got pictures of it? Wanna tell why you think it's wendermanianus and not terschecki, except from the fact you had something that looked like this with a wendermanianus tag ??

So do we have the descriptions of these species, so as not to make wild assumptions according to what our plants are supposed to be, from the tag?

So, either I have my descriptions of these two species completely wrong, or you're all wrong about this!

Wendermanianus is very characteristic in its spines and spine arrangements. So is terschecki. And they're completely different... Or I have many mislabeled plants....

PS: this was replaying to EG's post

Edited by mutant
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

there are two forms of both werd and terscheckii recognized, to which of them do you refer?

a lot of forms being sold and identified as werdermannianus are validus complex type plants

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5947

in this thread Trucha depicts two distinct forms of werdermannianus,

check these out:

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_werdermannianus_Bolivia_71_0083_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_werdermannianus_Bolivia_71_0083_kt_3.jpg

they are both a form of werdermannianus that seems allied with terscheckii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Mutant, i am reffering to Backebergs descriptions of the species when i say pretty small differences. Not my plant. I could name you the differences but its not important enough to me to take the time and translate the texts. It has to do with where the flowers are located on the plants and if you dont believe it, go ask someone else who read backebergs books. Its in german and all i can say that thats what he wrote. The Pascana complex is a 4 paged chapter in Backebergs huge book and im really not interested in proving you wrong. If you have problems with that, you should write backebergs inherits a letter because its his writing i was referring to. :wink: Backeberg was wrong in some of his theories but i am pretty sure he knew a few things about those cacti because he collected them in the wild.

And by the way, the plant i had came from someone who wrote two books on cacti and got some of his plants from backeberg himself. So i think he should be pretty accurate with his ID. That doesnt make him faultless but what do i care. Not sure what you are trying to prove but it really annoys me that you are giving me a hard time because of a subject that we both are in no way experts on. The plant was labeled as Werdermannianus and i posted pictures here a few years ago. If i remember right, michael confirmed the ID back then. And even if he was wrong and it would be a terscheckii, i still wouldnt care because they almost look the same. I grew all kind of Terscheckiis. The differences are so small that i am not sure if it is even appropriate to call them two diffrent species.

The old spines on my terscheckiis were a lot more yellow. The ones on the werdermannianus were rather grey. But in comparation to most of my terscheckiis, the spines on the werdermannianus were curved in a unique way and they had small rounded balls as base. Some terscheckiis i grew from seed had that curving too. The werdermannianus had a thicker body right from the start and it was growing a lot slower than my terscheckiis. I´ll see if i can find the pics of my old plant but i definately wont join an endless discussion about the ID´s because i know for sure it would be fruitless. bye Eg

Edited by Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
i definately wont join an endless discussion about the ID´s because i know for sure it would be fruitless.

no it won't, trust me, we already grow the 'fruits'! Not for me anyway.

Hey I understand some of you have been talking about this for years, for me it's quite new, but sure it's interesting. I have said elsewhere that I am talking in 'learning mode', I am not trying to reach the right answer. I enjoy the trip. Anyways, that's why I asked about the botanical description because i began to understand something about that either my 'wends' are not wends in fact or that there more than one descriptions, but I guess I will delve in Trout's book to study again after this indeed fine conversation.

Not sure what you are trying to prove but it really annoys me that you are giving me a hard time because of a subject that we both are in no way experts on.

not trying to prove anything dude, and not giving you a hard time. It's fine if you don't reply cause you don't care. I insisted cause I have some plants that came as wendermanianus, two types, which are a definately different plant than a normal terschecki and different to what the OP posted, for which you all agreed it's wendermanianus and boy it grows MUCH faster that what is reported and I have experienced with terscheckii.

I read Trout notes some more now after i saw the links and photos photos.

Archaea must be right, I think.

I makes some sense..

My wendermaniani are in between validus and some terscheckioid maybe.

OK, archaea, you're the man, what a thread

these look right and according to my wendermanianus.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_werdermannianus_kt_1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_werdermannianus_Bolivia_50_1998_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_werdermannianus_Bolivia_50_1998_kt_3.jpg

the 3rd one is the best , as it shows new growth etc.

So mine would be the form which is closer to validus, maybe a hybrid of validus [to give the arrangement in spines, swollen bases and sheer spine width] and some terscheckioid, to offer the curves.

Then again, another strain, bought from sab with a kk [oops] number , is like those, but without any curves [so far]

I took some photos to underline the differences

THE TERSCHECKIS

[note: first photo is young, is just maturing]

P1010862.jpg

P1010855.jpg

P1010856.jpg

THE WENDERMANIANUS

P1010857.jpg

P1010859.jpg

P1010853.jpg

and finally the uncurvy KK one, from sab

P1010858.jpg

****

So its pretty natural we got

terschekioid wendermanianus

and validoid wendermanianus

very interesting. so wendermanianus is a intermediate form which might confuse rather than solve if not further expanded, not unlike the pachanoi/cuzco/peruvian/macrogonus etc thing.

validus and validoid wendermaniani are Bolivian, right?

Edited by mutant
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

yes, Bolivia

not unlike the pachanoi/cuzco/peruvian/macrogonus etc thing.

confusing isn't it?

I think so at least.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

there are two forms of both werd and terscheckii recognized, to which of them do you refer?

a lot of forms being sold and identified as werdermannianus are validus complex type plants

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5947

in this thread Trucha depicts two distinct forms of werdermannianus,

check these out:

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_werdermannianus_Bolivia_71_0083_kt_2.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery2/albums/userpics/T_werdermannianus_Bolivia_71_0083_kt_3.jpg

they are both a form of werdermannianus that seems allied with terscheckii

From this link to kt's post it is fairly apparent that T. validus, T. tacaquirensis, T. taquimbalensis, T. escayachensis, and T. werdermannianus (at least the Bolivia 50.1998) are all the same "form," or at least all the plants referred to by these names in kt's post appear synonymous. (I really wish the name game could be settled; I probably would just follow Anderson is saying they were all T. tacaquirensis.) I won't necessarily disagree with the Bolivia 71.0083 being another form, but I must admit it is quite a good degree different.

In regards to the first "form" it clearly should be noted that fully mature growth can radically alter in appearance as seen in the following photos. These are all plants in and around Tupiza, Bolivia.

post-19-0-66771100-1302737304_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-82663900-1302737247_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-39106300-1302736992_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-64810900-1302737796_thumb.jpg

The second form is interesting in its similarity to T. terscheckii. The following photos are of T. terscheckii-like plants also from the same region of Tupiza.

post-19-0-33084700-1302737703_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-74438300-1302737922_thumb.jpg

post-19-0-98662400-1302738084_thumb.jpg

I really wish this second series of photos had plants in bloom to determine if they have flowers similar to T. terscheckii or like the T. tacaquirensis in the first as the flowers of the two species seem distinct enough from each other.

~Michael~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

What makes the second form of "werdermannianus" a werdermannianus (Bolivia 71.0083)? Clearly, it looks similar to pasacana and terscheckii, but does not have much of a similarity to the other form of werdermanniaanus (Bolivia 50.1998), or tacaquirensis, culpinensis, etc, which all look very similar and as Michael says, may well be the same form/species.

That link you provided Archaea has the first image of validus that looks like what i would have imagined it to be like. All other photos I've seen of "validus" are lacking those stout spines which are so characteristic of others in the complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well, T vaidus as a name has no collection data and has no certain ID,

Trichocereus werdermannianus

- B76 /Agurell 69.2

Body: Forming a large tree to over 16.5' (5m.) high, with a trunk to 3.3' (1m.)

high and 16" (40cm.) diameter.

Ribs: 10 at first, later 14 or more, to .75" (2cm.) high.

Areoles/Spines: Areoles 1" (2.5cm.) apart. On new growth about 10 spines,

central spine barely differentiated, to 2.75" (7cm.) long. Later growth increasing

in number. All spines yellowish, horn-colored or brownish. Flowers/Fruit: White

flower to 8" (20cm.) long. Fruit to 1.4" (3.5cm.) diameter.

Distribution: Southern Bolivia.

compare to:

Trichocereus terscheckii

Body: At first columnar with an intense green, woody trunk up to 17.75"

(45cm.) diameter, to 40' (12m.) tall. When older becomes branched with

parallel, ascending branches to 8" (20cm.) diameter. Often confused

with T. pasacana but is more branched, fewer ribs, different spines

and larger flowers.

Ribs: 8-14, prominent, obtuse, to 1.6" (4cm.) high.

Areoles/Spines: Areoles felted, to .6" (1.5cm.) diameter, to 1.2"

(3cm.) apart.

Spines: yellow, 8-15, tapering to a fine point, to 3.1" (8cm.) long.

Flowers/Fruit: Large flowers to 8" (20cm.) long, 4.75" (12cm.) broad.

Distribution: Northern Argentina.

Subspecies: v. montanus: Branches lighter green, obliquely ascending.

Note that werd has branches to 40cm and a trunk to 1 m

ters has branches to 20cm and a trunk to 45 cm

both can have yellow spines 7-8cm long

both have flowers about 8 cm long

tersc has 8-14 ribs, werd has 10-14

compare those with

Trichocereus validus (aka Echinopsis valida)

- B76 /Agurell et al 71

Body: Known primarily as stout, erect green columns although it may become

tree-like. Stems to 13.75" (35cm.) diameter.

Ribs: about 10.

Areoles/Spines: Areoles fairly large above, to 1.2" (3cm.) apart. Spines pale

yellow, sometimes darker above, few or weak at the apex, developing later

in the lower half of the areole. Seven to 10 radial spines to 1.3" (3.2cm.)

long with the bottom one the longest; 1-2 central spines to 2.75" (7cm.)

long.

Flowers/Fruit: White flower to 5.5" (14cm.) long. Fruit ovoid, wooly.

Distribution: South East Bolivia.

Validus has 35cm wide branches, spines that are yellow, sometimes with darker shades to them and that are to 7cm

the flower is about twice as long in validus than werd or tersc

all three have overlapping spine count ranges...

and then:

Trichocereus taquimbalensis

Body: Simple or branching from below or from the flank (if damaged?) to

8.2' (2.m.) high. Branches robust, dark green, to 6" (15cm.)

diameter.

Ribs: 9 Areoles/Spines: Areoles whitish, .4" (1cm.) diameter, .6"

(1.5cm.) apart. Spines thickened below, light brown at first, then

gray. Eight to 13 radial spines, tapering to a fine point to .75"

(2cm.) long. One stout central spine, porrect or directed downwards

to 2.4" (6cm.) long.

Flowers/Fruit: White flowers to 9" (23cm.) long. Dark green fruit, 1.6"

(4cm.)diameter.

Distribution: Cochabamba, Taquimbala, Bolivia.

Subspecies: v. wilkeae: Radial spines to 1" (2.5cm.) long, partially stout,

tapering to a fine point, curving, sometimes more or less hooked. Four thick,

tapering to a fine point central spines, sometimes compressed, much thickened

below. Sometimes all the spines are dark at the base and the tip. From Tupiza,

Bolivia.

I don't mean to be rude, but pictures do not a species make and it doesn't matter what we have seen with this or that name, the original botanical descriptions are what is important.

That larger werd, the one marked Bolivia 71.0083), looks a lot closer to the original botanical description than a lot of other material that is attributed that same name.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

this is awesome. arch yeah, confusing, but the interesting confusing type!

according to these, my 'wendermanianus''s are very 'taquimbalensis var.wilkeae' like, especially if taquimbalensis is much faster growing than the more fatty terscheckioids.

hey archaea do you happen to have descriptions for pasacana and chilensis too for comparison?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

chilo:

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

Synonyms

Description:

Stems rarely single, usually of several branches, sometimes of many, arising from near the base, starting nearly at right angles to the main trunk but soon erect, the tallest sometimes 8 meters high; ribs usually 16 or 17, low and broad, separated by narrow intervals, divided into large tubercles even when fully mature; radial spines when young light yellow with brown tips but soon becoming gray, 8 to 12, slightly spreading, often stout, 1 to 2 or even 4 cm. long; central spine single, porrect, often stout, 4 to 7 or even 12 cm. long; flowers 14 cm. long, outer perianth-segments white but tinged with red or brown; inner perianth-segments white, acuminate; style green below, cream-colored above; stigma-lobes cream-colored, about 18, 1.5 cm. long; fruit globular.

pasacana:

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

"5. Trichocereus pasacana (Weber).

Description:

Plant often 6 to 10 meters high, sometimes less than 1 meter, usually either simple or with few branches and resembling a small Carnegiea gigantea, sometimes with a number of branches from the base, more or less club-shaped, 3 dm. in diameter near the top, when old spineless at base;

ribs 20 to 38, low, 2 cm. high;

areoles large, approximate, sometimes touching one another;

spines numerous, rather variable on young plants;

spines yellow, stiff, subulate, the longer ones 4 to 14 cm. long; on old plants, especially flowering ones, elongated, flexible, sometimes bristle-like, 10 to 12 cm. long, yellow or even white;

flowers 10 cm. long, the ovary and tube covered with long brown hairs; fruit globular, about 3 cm. in diameter;

seeds small, dull black.

Type locality: High valleys or Cordilleras of Catamarca and Salta, Argentina.

Distribution: Argentina and Bolivia."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I agree, pictures don't make the species, but botanical descriptions can be flawed too. What exactly were the criteria for naming each form a species? How do we know that the botanists back in the day got it right? Obviously the name they created has to be applied to the plants they described, but that is not to say each one is a separate species. That is also not to say that each a single form we view as a species today is only one species.

In those descriptions, only taquimbalensis is mentioned having stout spines, yet stout spines are what I'd associate with werdermannianus, tacaquirensis and culpinensis. Not so say this is actually so, but that's how I've been viewing it. The plants I've seen in person with these names have all have very stout spines and large areoles. The plants I seen in person labelled pasacana and terscheckii have all have long, flexible spines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I agree, pictures don't make the species, but botanical descriptions can be flawed too. What exactly were the criteria for naming each form a species?

true, however the species definitions are actual definitions, if a form does not meet the definition it is not the species no matter what it is labeled or called.

How do we know that the botanists back in the day got it right?

if we use their names, then they got it right, species are not a consensus.

Obviously the name they created has to be applied to the plants they described, but that is not to say each one is a separate species. That is also not to say that each a single form we view as a species today is only one species.

i agree.

In those descriptions, only taquimbalensis is mentioned having stout spines, yet stout spines are what I'd associate with werdermannianus, tacaquirensis and culpinensis.

the definitions are definitive, no matter what we associate the names with, if we associate the names with something that does not meet the definition then we use the names in error.

The plants I've seen in person with these names have all have very stout spines and large areoles. The plants I seen in person labelled pasacana and terscheckii have all have long, flexible spines.

No doubt, what is labeled and passed around in regards to this group creates a lot of confusion, for example in many cases Karel Knize sells plants that do not meet the description of the epithets he provides, clearly he uses the names in error but people do not want to go to the trouble of trying to figure out what is what, so they just represent the plants with the name he provides, and over time the wrong plant gets called something it is not.

If you look at the descriptions the real werdermannianus is a much wider plant than terscheckii, the branches and trunk of werd are 2X as wide as those of terscheckii, and yet hardly anyone has specimens labeled werd that are 2X as wide as tersch. The truth of it is that few of us are botanists, we are mostly collectors who do not take the time to check and see if the plants we have are what they were sold as or what they are called, and then we try to identify things online... LOL

So there many mislabeled forms out there and a great deal of confusion, largely because of seed and plant retailers like Karel Knize who are in it to sell it not to provide accurate identifications. Considering that Knize has been supplying cacti for well over 30 years one can see how over time the perception of what plant is what species is muddled.

Some names are trouble, like validus and macrogonus, these names do not apply to populations, just plants observed outside of their habitat. Other names are unofficial but associated with specific populations in specific locations,

The truth is hopelessly obscured and many explorers and collectors laugh at the taxonomic situation and just do the best they can. I plan on using my own specific epithets in the future, that is to say I am planning on making up my own names for the plants according to my own perceptions. I am thinking Entheocereus gigas will be my type genus and all so called species will just be forms of it. Then to continue the tradition (of late) i will provide forms that do not meet the definitions of the labels they bear and make taxonomic lumping and splitting decisions by playing paper rock scissors with random strangers on the third Tuesday of every other month until i die.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That is why taxonomists value flowers more than spination.

Escayachensis is doubtfully distinct from werdermannianus. I generally attempt to preserve the tag names as I encounter them listed on plants though since I'm not trying to name or rename them and changing that name to werdermannianus potentially obscures valuable information about what is distributed as escayachensis.

Werdermannianus AND terscheckii both have populations with variant spinations of reddish or yellowish if the material that exists with collector numbers is correct.

Hunt's Lexicon lists terscheckii spines as yellow to brown and werdermannium spines as straw-coloured.

They are *really* easy to tell apart when big or when flowering. It would be nice to spend time visiting the range of wild populations for both during flowering season.

Why Hunt & crew lumped them in the CITES Citation Index (and gave Anderson his misinfo) is still a mystery to me. Once someone pointed out (in the consensus group's journal) that the two could not intergrade in the wild as their ranges do not overlap, suddenly they became two species again when they appeared in the Lexicon. All without even a word from Hunt about the reasoning underlying either change.

The really weird part of that to me is how they could have ever decided to lump those two while at the same time preserving pasacana. That was totally capricious.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That is why taxonomists value flowers more than spination.

I have doubts about flowers being that significant in all species, for example there are numerous species that have floral diversity. In the case of these plants i do not think flowers are as meaningful as we would like.

Werdermannianus AND terscheckii both have populations with variant spinations of reddish or yellowish if the material that exists with collector numbers is correct.

i don't trust a lot of collections as being properly identified, i believe that there are improperly identified werdermannianus and terscheckii, not to mention numerous other so called species.

They are *really* easy to tell apart when big or when flowering. It would be nice to spend time visiting the range of wild populations for both during flowering season.

they should be, according to the original description werdermannianus is a larger plant with branches easily twice as thick in diameter as terscheckii. The difference should be like night and day with regard to large specimens.

Once someone pointed out (in the consensus group's journal) that the two could not intergrade in the wild as their ranges do not overlap, suddenly they became two species again when they appeared in the Lexicon. All without even a word from Hunt about the reasoning underlying either change.

Silly, Hunt is a joke anyway.

I'd like to see field study work done on the populations of these species.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Flowers work great so long as people understand flower mutations and variants occur. Its even possible to have bud mutations where different looking and even different colored flowers appear on a single plant.

Where most people screw up is they think looking at a single flower tells them what its characteristic features are. A disturbing number of descriptions get based on lonely flower.

Carlos Ostolaza summed it up most accurately when telling me that at least 50 if not 100 floral dissections of a single species are required to know what is really a characteristic. Most people just don't put that much effort into it so its certainly important to pay attention to what is listed as the specimens that were examined if relying on the printed word.

First-hand observation of as many flowers as possible is really important and much more valuable. Its a hard one if people don't live where there is floral access.

DIfferent flowers do not make for different plants necessarily (that is a commonly made error) but identical flowers do mean it is a single species. And for some things like this area they are quite useful. Terscheckii flowers much more like pasacana than werdermannianus.

Hunt has problems in his proclaimations but he is also working with a team of international botanists so their collective observations can be quite valuable even when it all funnels through the pen of Hunt. Despite its assorted problems, and how much I may not agree with, the Lexicon is very much worth its price.

Werdermannianus can in fact BE twice the diameter of some adult terscheckii even on adults that are less than 20 feet. Terscheckii does grow to be the larger diameter of the two though even though older werdermannianus appear to have more extensive branching. One commonly encountered problem to keep in mind with original descriptions is they typically result from a person seeing some plants and describing them. Its relatively rare that anything more than a small geographic area is examined prior to this occurring despite what we would like to see. Britton & Rose describing peruvianus based on what was alongside the railroad line above Matucana is a great example of some botanists who needed to strike out a bit farther afield. Descriptions can be of use but they need the plants to be visited and examined in person to really be of much value since nature can diverge fairly wildly from those 'snapshots' called collection vouchers.

Collections entirely depend on the collector in terms of their value. Amateurs and incompetent professional collect too so the name is just as important to know as the locale. Its not good to reject or accept them without knowing some details.

Edited by trucha
  • Like 1

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

×