New Trichocereus

[solomon]

Just received this beautiful cutting in the mail today from someone moving overseas.

It's grown from seed labelled as T. macrogonus

What are your guys opinons on what this could be?

[bit]

looks like a macrogonus to me, based on seed labelled as macro which I've grown.

[solomon]

Lol it's probably from the same seed source. Assuming yours were from a NZ importer that has since stopped selling them?

If so, do you have any idea where they came from originally?

Loving the furry areoles.

[Seldom]

definite macro, if you look really close at its skin you would see little white dots

[Evil Genius]

Very nice one, Centipede. So the seedsource isnt around anymore? Would have loved to grow that one. Looks like its gonna be a very massive cactus one day.

[CβL]

Absolutely mint!

I agree that it's a macrogonus as well.

[bℓσωηG]

thats one sexxy lookin cactus!!

[mutant]

yep looks right... macrogonus, peruvianus, whatever. doesn't look cuzcoid anyway...

[Seldom]

does anyone know what the chalky residue is that sits like a film on the skin of cacti like macrogonus? none of the other cacti have get it iv got 4 fairly small j3 x spach, a spach x pach and a scop and none of them seem to get it.. is it produced by the cactus?

[Gunter]

It is plant wax, lots of other forms produce it, just wait till they get older.

I would call that plant a peruvianus.

But then I have no idea what a macrogonus is, I do not view macrogonus to be a valid name anymore.

[Evil Genius]

I do not view macrogonus to be a valid name anymore.

Me neither. Variation within this species is just so great that many cactus sprecialists from the past should have just thrown all of the Peruvianoid Cacti into one big group and call it a species. They are variable, so what? Most species in the Trichocereus family dont deserve their own name.

[Teotzlcoatl]

It's Trichocereus peruvianus var. "True Blue", there is no such thing as T. macrogonus.

[mutant]

^^^

lol

what about these Teotz? what var are they?

[M S Smith]

Yep, T. macrogonus not valid.

~Michael~

[Bretloth]

Isn't 'true blue' made up? By Teotz if memory serves. Looks similar to some KK Macrogonus/Peruvianus pics I've seen. Whether you use the Macro or peru name would depend if yuou are a splitter or a lumper, a personal preference and no more based in fact than each other as far as I can tell.

[Seldom]

baahh.. you're all beancounters, leave me and my macro alone

[Teotzlcoatl]

Isn't 'true blue' made up? By Teotz if memory serves.

Yup, but I think it's a worthy name to use to make the distinction between the Trichocereus cuscoensis variety. If we don't have a diverse vocabulary of distinctive words to speak the language, how can we ever have a decent conversation about these things?

[Bretloth]

Yup, but I think it's a worthy name to use to make the distinction between the Trichocereus cuscoensis variety. If we don't have a diverse vocabulary of distinctive words to speak the language, how can we ever have a decent conversation about these things?

 

I agree, that's why I just call them as they are labelled, or what the grower calls them unless an obvious mislabel. I think people changing the names causes half the confusion, like changing serra blue to true blue. Serra blue can be traced to Sacred Succulents, kk 242 can be traced to Knize and you could get collection data from them for classification. But trying to find out what a true blue is leads to confusion in my opinion.

Like this plant in question is labelled a macrogonus, only so many people collected and sold that named cactus, only so many imported them to NZ, maybe Knize, Koehres and maybe a few more recently etc, you could through a process of elimination get a good idea where the original seed source came from by comparing known samples of those cacti. Or just call it a kick arse lookin cactus. Upto the owner I suppose.

[Evil Genius]

Couldnt agree more, brethloth. Renaming makes it very hard to keep track of plants. When i got into cactus growing, i wanted to create as much cultivars as possible. But the more cacti i named, the more i got into situations where people told me that they already know that particular plant but under a totally diffrent name. Its been years since i got into cactus growing and i still havent traced back all the home-made names to their original source. Looking at my personal collection, i must say that there are less diffrent types of cacti around than i suspected at first. A few years back, i bought many funky looking Trichs from diffrent sources and they all looked totally diffrent. Some of the were sick, some werent kept under ideal conditions, some were just influenced by weather and sun. But after i grew them in my collection, many of them turned into pretty much the same type of Trich i already got from somewhere else. As an example, i once bought a Plant from an Importer. Liek huge Trichs. 1-2 m tall. They were labeled Pachanoi or Peruvianus. I bought them because the color differed greatly from what was available that time. They were colored in a very bright neon green. I posted some pics and if i remember right, Archaea came up with the ID of Trichocereus SP. Torres & Torres. At that time, i wasnt sure its really that one as i couldnt imagine how the Torres Trich could get into the german market but i kept it in mind to compare it if i should ever get a confirmed Torres. What happened like two years ago. It was sent from a very cool grower in the States who´s also a member here: Greetz Osprey. ;-) Now that i could grow them together, it was getting obvious they really are the same. After growing them under the same conditions, they look pretty much identical now. Archaea was right and i was happy i finally grew the plant known as Torres.

I also got a plant fom the same german supplier i got the others from, labeled as labeled Trichocereus Glaucus. It definately looked Glaucous in a way when i got it, but the longer i grew it under good conditions, the more it was obvious its actually the same plant. Torres one more time. So, the seller sold the same plant under diffrent names. I dont even think it was intentional. Its just what happens when salespeople try to come up with a name for a plant they owned for like two or three months. Just an example to show how the cactus market works.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Evil Genius

[mutant]

by your definition Teotz, that you must make clear it is your own self-coined naming, you include all non-cuzco peruvianoids. More confusion.

"true peruvianus" would be more appropriate, without implying "true peruvianus" would be a certain peruvian phenotype, but only a non-cuzco...

for the history the cacti I showed are

1st peruvianus 'los gentiles'

2nd unknown source, came as pachanoi I think, where given to me and I think they look peruvian too, not unlike los gentiles. what does los gentiles mean anyway?

Edited September 9, 2011 by mutant

[solomon]

for the history the cacti I showed are

1st peruvianus 'lost gentiles'

2nd unknown source, came as pachanoi I think, where given to me and I think they look peruvian too, not unlike los gentiles. what does los gentiles mean anyway?

 

Cheers for that, I was going to ask what they were

Los Gentiles is a place in Peru I believe, ruins?

edit: Oh and it means "The Gentile"?? Not sure that is just from googling

Edited September 9, 2011 by centipede

[Bretloth]

Got this from Sacred Succulents about Los Gentiles ~ Trichocereus peruvianus "Los Gentiles" "Pichu"

Fat blue frosted upright stems 4"-6" in diameter. Large fuzzy areoles with 6+ short radial spines and 1 or more long stout central spines. New spines originally blood red to yellow, fading to black and then dull gray or white with age. White flowers around the full moon. Ripe fruits are considered a choice "Pitahaya" for eating. Occurs at 8,000-11,000 feet in the central highlands of Peru near Matucana. Grows in a acequia irrigated agricultural system on rock wall borders of andenes and milpa style gardens. The cactus is referred to locally as "Pichu". Said to have been tended to for at least 3,800 years by the lineage of people known as "Los Gentiles".

[Teotzlcoatl]

I think people changing the names causes half the confusion, like changing serra blue to true blue. Serra blue can be traced to Sacred Succulents

I'd say "Serra Blue" is a type of "True Blue".

[Gunter]

I pretty much quit labeling my plants, I have a few forms like peruvianus, bridgesii and pachanoi, but the vast majority are hybrids involving all three species.

While I recall what almost all of them are, I kind of want to forget. It gets to the point for me where they are all the same, they all look alike.

I would rather grow a plant because of some trait I like, than grow it because it is some named clone that I want to collect.

I used to be on the lookout for specific clones and forms. I remember when all I had was a pachanot and a kk242 Cuzco, everything sounded so exotic back then and I wanted to get clones with good reputations. But when you have five or six named clones of what is clearly a single species it is easy to feel dumb, like you just have one species with a ridiculous presentation of a bunch of confusing names and numbers, it all seems remarkably counter productive to me. Then you have the online ID game, people say that things are what they look like or give their clone the same name as what it looks like, adding to the confusion.

I find that I would rather keep things simple.

There are only a couple of basic forms that I recognize now, call them landraces if you will, I think that would be wise.

When a clone is super distinct, like a monstrose clone, then I feel like a name might be useful, but in general I am starting to detest them.

About three years ago I had well over two thousand cacti, counting seedlings. Even if I named 1 out of 10, that would only add to the confusion.

Anyway macrogonus is a funky name, but perhaps not if you have a plant from the Berlin garden that the source of the name involved, but I hear that such plants are not what you would expect, that they look distinctly different than the fat blue peruvianoids. Then again I don't have one so I can't share my opinion about that.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Archaea

[Teotzlcoatl]

There are only a couple of basic forms that I recognize now, call them landraces if you will, I think that would be wise.

Ditto.

T. peruvianus, T. pachanoi, T. "pachanot", T. cuscoensis, T. bridgesii, etc.

[mutant]

macrogonus seems like a good name to distinguish spiny non cuzco peruvians from less spiny ones like 'los gentiles' or 'icaro' phenotypes.. in that sense, the cactus in the OP is a macrogonus

obsession is -kind of- bad -sometimes- . you loose money and energy in discovering ... nada...

passion, on the other hand, is fine

keep it up.

Edited September 9, 2011 by mutant