Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
CβL

Three Tricho IDs

Question

Hello. :)

I was wondering if anyone could help me ID these trichos:

gallery_7332_3_236391.jpg

gallery_7332_3_66684.jpg

gallery_7332_3_606722.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

the first is werd/taq/val like

the second is very much like Tarma

the third looks allied with tarma/puq/cuzco

that kinds of makes the latter two forms peruvianoid, but not fat blue or mac allied types

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yes, I had that suspicion for the first one too.

The second one: Well, I just checked a few photos of tarmaensis, and none have that sinuous rib margin. It's probably a hybrid with cuzco/chilo (to get that rib margin) I think.

Third one: The lack of spines on emerging areoles is the spanner in the works. Puqui and cuzco both have prominent spines on emergent areoles.

And as far as I know, the seed was originally from KK...

Edited by βluntmuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'd say...

1) T. tacaquirensis (aka T. werdermannianus, taquimbalensis, validus, culpinensis)

2) T. cuzcoensis

3) T. peruvianus

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Interesting how the spination on the younger growth on the third one is remeniscent of pachanoi or SSP but the older growth is more 'standard' peruvianoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The first is not taquimbalensis - the new growth should have reddish spines, older are grey. Spines go red when wet. I can't remember the label that Martin put on it, but I checked it online and it appeared correct.

_MG_3945.jpg

The second is Martin's eight limbed bridgesii (I think?), which most agree is a bridge hybrid. Spination is peru-like, but overall form suggests bridge.

Third is Martin's Cuzcoensis, distinctive due to the parallel downward spines.

BTW, did you buy all those plants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

No I didn't buy them (yet hehehe). But I don't agree with his labelling on the last two (seeing as they came from KK).

The second one's spines are just too regular to be from a bridgesii I think. They're not the 'very unequal [length]' that's in the Br&R description. The next problem is that rib margin, how it's so windy and wavy. Because of that, I'm sure it's a cross with a cuzcoensis/chiloensis. So, despite it being previously confirmed as a bridgesii, I am pretty sure that it is not. I reckon it's a hybrid for sure. I reckon a GC/MS test would sort out if this is a bridgesii enough as well. ;)

I did some looking, and I can't find any reference of a cuzco trait being two downward pointing parallel spines, anywhere. All the main pictures of cuzcoensis do not have this trait at all (I think it's just a hybrid trait). The emergent areoles also having no spines is not a cuzcoensis trait at all. Cuzcoensis as well do not get very glaucous, while this plant does. So, with some certainty, I say this plant is not a purebred cuzcoensis. I also had my suspicions that it was a peruvianus cross as well. The number of spines is on the high side for a peruvianus, and the spine arrangement is quite regular, so maybe it's a peruvianus crossed with something with more regular spines, and a larger number of them. A GC/MS would also probably sort this one out too. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The second is Martin's eight limbed bridgesii (I think?), which most agree is a bridge hybrid. Spination is peru-like, but overall form suggests bridge.

Are you able to elaborate? Not much about it suggests bridgesii form to me. Looks pretty standard for cuzcoensis to me.

The first is not taquimbalensis - the new growth should have reddish spines, older are grey. Spines go red when wet. I can't remember the label that Martin put on it, but I checked it online and it appeared correct.

I don't know much about T. taquimbalensis, but this one looks similar (similar but not identical) to terscheckii.

Third is Martin's Cuzcoensis, distinctive due to the parallel downward spines.

I think of those spines as being a very pachanoid trait as I mentioned earlier c.f. Yowie. The older spines look more peruvianoid though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The second is Martin's eight limbed bridgesii (I think?), which most agree is a bridge hybrid. Spination is peru-like, but overall form suggests bridge.

Yeah it is Martin's Trichocereus "Super Spiny", occasionally sold as T. bridgesii

I've always thought it to be bridge x cuzco..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yeah it is Martin's Trichocereus "Super Spiny", occasionally sold as T. bridgesii

I've always thought it to be bridge x cuzco..

The super spiny is definitely not the same plant that he labels bridge... The bridge has much thinner columns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That last black trich really is a mystery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The super spiny is definitely not the same plant that he labels bridge... The bridge has much thinner columns.

You're right, the Super Spiny is different than his bridgesii..

However, a friend bought 5 clones off of him as T. bridgesii and they were definitely the "Super Spiny" clone. This could be just down to the wrong plants getting packaged up. I thought I better mention that it had been sold before under a different name.

I will be heading there in June and will enquire about the heritage of the plants then, tho I'm guessing most of it is KK sourced.

Edited by centipede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It is KK sourced for the most part, but Martin doesn't trust the KK IDs either, he's been getting independant IDs for any KK stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yes, I can't remember the name, but a very well respected English cactus writer/editor agreed that his bridgesii's were indeed bridgesiis. However, science doesn't work on reputations.

The super spiny can be distinguished from the 'bridgesii' by it's much less glaucous nature, and the fact that it has large spines from emergent areoles. I can post a picture of it if anybody likes (there's also my plant that I have). But my guess is that they have a similar heritage. If the stories are true, and KK just collected seed from plants and then sold them under the mother's name... then it would all make sense.

The cuzcoensis is the one I'd very much like to know more about. It needs some testing for sure.

That last black trich really is a mystery

Yes, I couldn't agree more. I think it was called a fuscacereus schwarzii (double points available for finding where that name comes from).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I agree on that the 1st one is not a taquimbalensis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

"However, a friend bought 5 clones off of him as T. bridgesii and they were definitely the "Super Spiny" clone. This could be just down to the wrong plants getting packaged up. I thought I better mention that it had been sold before under a different name."

no they weren't, he also brought a 'super spiny' log which is quite different from those 5 clones.

the 'super spiny' is a very dark green where as that 'bridge-whatever-it-is' (pic 2) is a light waxy blue colour with the weird wiggling lines along the ribs

Edited by bogfrog

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

×