Trichocereus Valida

[Evil Genius]

Ritter was a good guy and he was seriously informed about the plants he collected. But he was also very interested in naming as many Cacti as possible. So he created many names for plants that dont deserve being called a species of its own. Most belong into diffrent species and its a fact that many of his Trichs are actually just a variety of the big species like Peruvianus, Pachanoi, Terscheckii, Pascana etc. Also, he had a serious problem with backeberg and tried to proove him wrong as often as he could. Sometimes they totally disagreed on a certain species. And sometimes, Backeberg was right and Ritter was wrong. The opposite was the case more oftenly as they used diffrent taxonomic systems and so on. Point i wanna make is that teh fact that Ritter named a plant doesnt proove anything. Its a neat thing and all this but it doesnt say anything about what the plant actually is. bye Eg

[M S Smith]

EG, thanks for the comments, but come on man, what are your thoughts on Robert's "T. valida"?

Here's a link to Ritter's Kakteen in Sudamerika for those interested...

http://www.cactuspro.com/biblio/en:ritter

~Michael~

[tripsis]

I must say that I agree that the 'T. validus' from Field's does look more like a T. terscheckii to me. I would have expected T. validus to look similar to T. tacaquirensis. T. terscheckii appears to be a fairly variable species in terms of spination, ranging from almost spineless to covered heavy in long, stout spines.

Edited December 16, 2011 by tripsis

[Evil Genius]

Hi Michael, i havent had the time to have a very close look at all the pics because im kinda moving and stuff so i wasnt really going into that. I couldnt find what Ritter wrote about Trichocereus Validus in his seed catalogue but i´ll take a look tomorrow because i have them somewhere. Couldnt find Ritters notes about Validus KAKTEEN IN SÜDAMERIKA and i dont think he wrote about it there. Could be wrong though, was just browsing through it very hasty. In Backebergs Book however, i could find his description of Trichocereus Validus and some pics as well. Personally, i dont think that the name Trichocereus Validus is valid. Simply because there is huge uncertainty about what it really is and where it grows. Also there are many varieties of Trichocereus Terscheckii that were considered Validus. The plant in the first post is definately the plant that backeberg meant when he wrote about Trichocereus Validus. He also posted a pic and im very certain thats it. BUT...he also mentioned that the name is probably not valid and that it has many similarities to Terscheckii and Werdermannianus. At that time (and till today) there was huge uncertainty about what the original describers were looking at. And all the describing was done using bad photos so the original name cereus valida wasnt good to begin with. Like i said, Terscheckii and Validus are almost identical; at least identical enough to be lumped into one species. They both flower at night, both have flowers around the top, flowers look pretty much alike and the spines are very very similar. Long story short, Plant in Post 1 is definately what was called a Validus back then but it should be called Terscheckii using nowadays taxonomic system. bye Eg

Edited December 16, 2011 by Evil Genius

[Bretloth]

Call it Jim if you want. I think this is where the confusion comes from. People renaming plants, like pachanot, short spined peruvianus, true blue etc etc. Only causes confusion as far as I'm concerned. But the plants don't care either way and I'm not in the mood for a pissing competition, so call it what you like.

[M S Smith]

Hate to se you respond that way, but I get it. I hope you understand that my only intention is to further the discussion. Peace man.

~Michael~

[Evil Genius]

Yeah guys, i agree there is absolutely no need to argue over this. Brethloth, personally i appreciate a lot that you posted these awesome pics and i also think its sensational to find someone who says he grew a Validus directly from Ritters seed. You know, i only saw one more Validus grown from Ritter seed and it was destroyed over winter because of a broken heater in my own greenhouse. One thing i learnt in the years as a cactus grower is that names are pretty much pointless if there is no valid standard used for identification. You know, the question what defines a species is discussed among taxonomists and many of them have diffrent opinions. I have no problem calling this plant Validus though it wouldnt be called that name using modern standards. But then again, actually we should call them all Echinopsis. I know most people who are experienced with Trichocereus dont agree with that but modern taxonomists like lumping as it makes the taxonomic system easier to understand. Its a valid point but sometimes the easiest solution isnt the best one. Trichocereus Validus is probably a variety of Terscheckii and it would be called that using modern standards. Or maybe even Echinopsis Forbesii or Echinopsis Rhodotricha what is given as a Pseudonym for Validus. You know, Terscheckii is a huge species with many subspecies that are similar to each other but diffrent in some ways. The Plant in pic 1 definately has some differences to a few Terscheckii varieties so it definately deserves the variety status var. Valida or Var. Validus.

I think as well Brethloth and Michael are right in their points and i dont think you brethloth shouldnt take this personally. What Michael said doesnt make your plant less stunning or awesome or a Validus in the sense Ritter called it. The Ethnobotanical Scene always called plants how it wanted to so i think its best you propagate it as Validus. The plant has history and thats why you can call it Validus. The Taxonomic point of view is pretty much uninteresting for most people here.

The point with confusing people by renaming plants is not so easy and you need to differentiate a little bit, Some plants are hybrids and should be seen as what they are. If a plant is actually a peruvianus with short spines, i dont have problems calling it short spine peruvianus as its definately diffrent from pachanoi. Roseii is diffrent because its actually nothing but a very old name for a stunningly blue Peruvianus with very unique spines. Some would even call it a Macrogonus and its possible thats the type that describers meant when they made up the name Macrogonus. But i doubt it´s actually anything more than a Variety of Peruvianus as i dont accept the name macrogonus on a botanical level. I accept it from a growers point of view to keep track of the plants but the taxonomical point of view is diffrent from that. I am not very familiar with the pachanot so i wont go into that but i dont think anyone considers it a species of its own. Its probably a variety out of one of the big species as well. You know, to a certain point i agree with brethloth when he says that renaming clones (in the scene, not on a taxonomical level) causes confusion but thats not Michaels fault. Just imagine how many hybrids are created every day. Just think about it. I know german growers that cross like 500 to 1000 Tricho Hybrids every year. The same happens in nature every growing season ten thousands of times or even more oftenly. You just cant give everyone a valid name because differences are minor in most cases. I dont think it hurts giving plants clone names like Eileen J1 PC etc because it doesnt say anything about what they are on a taxonomical level and it helps people to keep track of where a plant came from. You know, two cacti can look exactly the same but flower with a totally diffrent color. I just bought a Peruvianus hybrid that looks like standard Peruvianus but flowers red. Thats why i think its important to keep plants apart.

Btw, i need to say this again because the Validus in brethloths pics blew me away right from the start. I dont care about the name, its a very nice cactus. That plant is awesome and im very happy its around. Will need to knock PD out and sneak into his secret pollen stash. Might also sexually harass him but thats just for the fun of it.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Evil Genius

[trucha]

Images posted here aren't displaying for me for some reason but I did see the plant. I wish I had more time for forum conversations but life is what it is.

My understanding that that this is one that was acquired in 1935 from Blossfeld's expedition. (That being also the origin of rosei as the name applied for those other two beautiful lines. If people have those particular plants, the name 'rosei' should travel with them for sake of history.)

It would be great if Bretloth or PD could check this with Robert but my memory has those plants (validus and rosei) coming as live plants rather than seeds (whereas Ritter's were acquired as seeds sold through his sister) -- if I understood our conversation on those topics correctly.

According to Robert, both he and his father obtained plants from multiple sources. However their single share purchased in Blossfeld's efforts brought them a guaranteed one thousand plant minimum in return. ( This was how the expedition was financed. Another 11,000 cacti went to their other backers as there was 12 shares offered.)

It sure was a pleasure meeting both Robert and Bretloth and getting to spend a few hours with them.

Considering how divergent some feature or another seems to be for most of these plants, I presently don't have a problem thinking this could be correctly identified. (Interestingly one of the other plants also growing there is Ritter's terscheckoides.)

It looks a lot like what little I can see on Backeberg's images.

Assuming the ID is right its the only adult validus I've ever seen so I don't feel qualified to say very much. I've looked at all of the published accounts I am aware of and whatever material in horticulture I've been able to locate bearing this name but never a real adult or a wild population.

The branching is the main feature that seems off for validus but its worth checking through images to see what sort of stem damage might have been present. There seems to be cuts or damage to most regions showing branching (at least on the images I have here - I'll find out what is wrong with my ability to view the images here)

I'd like to see other bona fide validus adults. The only largish specimens I've seen have been fat <2 meter tall columns from S Cal in 5 gallon pots and possibly what is labelled forbesii at the Huntington (if Br & R's thoughts on forbesii were right).

If what Backeberg pictures (in Die Cactaceae) at Monaco is still alive it would seem an ideal plant for someone to try to photograph?

This next year has some real field work planned involving a multinational team (all are PhD botanists except for me). Hopefully this plant and others can be found and studied through visual assessment and molecular work. The latter project has already begun. See Abesiano & Kiesling's article forthcoming in Haseltonia for their first volley.

I don't mind lumping or splitting but lumping needs to be done with subdivisions capable of preserving known populations that differ from each other or it can obscure what is out there. A bit of cactus conservation is presently being crippled by the lumping eliminating names with protected status. That said I'm certainly becoming more of a lumper than a splitter when it comes to the notion of species. I presently suspect when the dust settles and the new rules/definitions in the latest ICBN become uniformly applied we will find relatively few species and many plants we know placed at subspecific rankings.

[trucha]

Its worth adding that Ritter's work was not an attempt to summarize all known cacti - just the ones he had examined. He omitted many.

[M S Smith]

KT, here's a shot of an interesting Trichocereus at the gardens in Monaco...

Here's one for a little size perspective...oh, and he loves this plant!

Otherwise I keep running into this bad ass plant there...

~Michael~

[trucha]

The larger ones of those at Monaco look more like RItter's terscheckoides but I'll try to post images of that in coming days to compare. Bretloth or PD probably have images also?

The southern giant trichocereus species is a really great area of plants needing a lot of study. Just the intergrades between terscheckii and pasacana suggest a lot needs revision.

Sounds like Backeberg perhaps simply did not live long enough to see his plant or plants branch.

Finding ways of linking (or rejecting) wild populations to what is in horticulture and to what was described seems doable if specimen collections are uniformly good in preparation and well documented as to origin.

For whatever reason all images here are now displaying fine for me, including the earlier sets that did not a few hours ago.

Thanks Bretloth and Michael for posting so many images and to whoever fixed my problem with images.

Edited December 17, 2011 by trucha

[M S Smith]

Hey KT, what are your thoughts on the other one? Here she is again...

Here's another looker from there...

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

I found this interesting plant labeled as T. werdermannianus, even though most T. werdermannianus I've seen fall in with T. tacaquirensis. I don't know, but it seems to look quite a bit like Robert's T. valida.

Here's the main link from where I nabbed the shot. Nice for identification purposes for sure.

http://community.webshots.com/user/cactusgege

~Michael~

[Bretloth]

Will be back out there after the holidays, will take proper notes. Pretty sure it's from Ritter as Robert told the story about Ritter coming out here for a job way back when but there wasn't one so continued on his way, when we where setting the ladders up for a cut, he's told me that story before in relation to that plant. Will double check to make sure, memory is a funny thing. Especially when standing in awe of giant cacti lol. One thing I want to get across with this plant also is the pics really don't do it justice, was the 1st thing I noticed when I looked at the pics when I got home, the pictures just don't quite capture it all.

[PD.]

PD, not to be argumentative,

But really Michael, but thats when you are at your best

but I don't recall anyone dismissing the PC as from South America, but rather only looking to confirm its origins, whether that be from natural populations in Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, or some private collection in these countries or elsewhere. Certainly you don't want to dismiss this as having some value.

 

I cant really be bothered trawling through old threads or searching the net like many do to get their point across, i simply dont have the time, but i have seen it mentioned a few times, that is questioning if the pc clone even originates in Sth Am. What i was really referring to though was a few comments i have heard, the most recent at EGA, where i was told that "according to trout the pachanot is a hybrid that came from cross breeding in Australia that has found its way all around the world, its not even real pachanoi!" I couldnt be bothered getting into specifics with the guy, he can believe what he wants afaic, he was happy and its not my place to tell him what is what or force my opinion on him. Im not here to argue what trout said or didnt say nor what his final assumption of it all may be, all i assume is that the person that told me this wasnt really paying attention or had read half of a story somewhere and added their own little twist to it. Whether it be pachanoi or not wasnt really the point of what i was saying, that this particular clone has been questioned so much that ppl now dismiss it as just some hybrid produced in Australia way back when or some other cross bred form is what concerns me. We (and when i say we i mean the dudes that just wanna chill with their plants, not the armchair experts) have gotten so far from the real question that the stories, so many of them, are just getting to be all over the place and that is when the questions stop being asked and the stories become fact to some ppl. To some people "might" often means "is" that is what you must consider Michael.

But back to the subject of this particular plant of Robert's...seeing your comment about "Roberts naming of some plants" aren't you at all concerned about this so-called T. valida? Still looks like T. terscheckii to me, at least the one growing through the roof. Photos 5, 6, and 7 look to be of a slightly different plant to me, or at least the background shows them to be in a different location.

My comment about Roberts naming of plants was as i mentioned, in regards to his stubbornness. Often when questioned about the names which i assume a few people do he gets rather defensive. Old habits are hard to break and since he has more than likely known some of these names since childhood he would hold fast to them regardless of modern nomenclature or other peoples opinions of them. Yep the validus sure does look terscheckii, the flowers like you mentioned are a dead ringer, his rosei also looks a hell of a lot like peruvianus

Like i have said before, when it comes to names, i name them as i get them these days as it helps me to remember origins and often the lil stories behind them. Throwing them into a pile of which they most fit if they arent labelled by the previous owner/seller. Ill leave the slueth work and the niitty gritty to the experts so they can tell people when they are right or wrong, thats what experts are for no? The "Im more right than you" thing is just boring now, yes it helps ppl to discuss and gets questions asked that may not have been asked previously but ill leave that to the "experts" and then decide for myself when it comes to putting ink to tag, sometimes the "discussions" can seem a rather forced affair. There is only so many piles to throw into.

Im heading out to see robert soon again and this time i will actually try and get some questions fully answered and write them down this time. Cant say if they will be detailed answers as he does go off in different directions with his conversations sometimes but i will try. I doubt it will solve much though, we all like a lil bit of mystery dont we?

[M S Smith]

Will be back out there after the holidays, will take proper notes. Pretty sure it's from Ritter as Robert told the story about Ritter coming out here for a job way back when but there wasn't one so continued on his way, when we where setting the ladders up for a cut, he's told me that story before in relation to that plant. Will double check to make sure, memory is a funny thing. Especially when standing in awe of giant cacti lol. One thing I want to get across with this plant also is the pics really don't do it justice, was the 1st thing I noticed when I looked at the pics when I got home, the pictures just don't quite capture it all.

 

Well anything you have to offer would be great. I think I've come so strong at this topic as I sort of just gave up on figuring out the whole T. validus thing years ago due to the confusion, and then to see it spoken of so definitely begged a challenge. Like KT said, there isn't much issue with keeping an original tag name, but at the same time we need to take some consideration of where the botanical understanding is at present. And please, when you go back see if you can figure anything out about the other plant, the one near the T. chiloensis, that looks a little different than the shed plant.

But really Michael, but thats when you are at your best

That's good to hear; I don't mean to be mean or anything, I just want to find answers, and if they don't exist then point that out as well.

i have seen it mentioned a few times, that is questioning if the pc clone even originates in Sth Am. What i was really referring to though was a few comments i have heard, the most recent at EGA, where i was told that "according to trout the pachanot is a hybrid that came from cross breeding in Australia that has found its way all around the world, its not even real pachanoi!" I couldnt be bothered getting into specifics with the guy, he can believe what he wants afaic, he was happy and its not my place to tell him what is what or force my opinion on him. Im not here to argue what trout said or didnt say nor what his final assumption of it all may be, all i assume is that the person that told me this wasnt really paying attention or had read half of a story somewhere and added their own little twist to it. Whether it be pachanoi or not wasnt really the point of what i was saying, that this particular clone has been questioned so much that ppl now dismiss it as just some hybrid produced in Australia way back when or some other cross bred form is what concerns me. We (and when i say we i mean the dudes that just wanna chill with their plants, not the armchair experts) have gotten so far from the real question that the stories, so many of them, are just getting to be all over the place and that is when the questions stop being asked and the stories become fact to some ppl. To some people "might" often means "is" that is what you must consider Michael.

Well unless someone can demonstrably prove that they PC didn’t come from South America then there is a 50% chance it did, and there is simply no evidence either way from what I have heard (maybe KT can speak to this issue). But saying the PC is a hybrid from outside of South America, and postulating that it might be are two completely different things; the former factual and the latter speculative. And sorry to say this, but I will never consider my readers propensity for error in grasping the difference as ground to refrain from expressing myself. I am a particularly good student of the English language and if someone fails to see my qualifying statements that is their failing, not mine. I have been very careful in couching my comments about the PC in language that leaves room for uncertainty, but considering the state of literacy these days...

KT (trucha) has also not been hasty in his comments about the PC. The fact is that that fellow at EGA should have just been told that there isn't certainty on the matter and unless he can produce demonstrable support he shouldn’t be so cocksure. I might have little doubt that the PC is closer in relation to T. bridgesii than to T. pachanoi (I have cared less about its actual origins than KT), but the fact that doubt is even a possibility prevents my presentation of demonstrable proof.

Yep the validus sure does look terscheckii, the flowers like you mentioned are a dead ringer, his rosei also looks a hell of a lot like peruvianus

I’m going to back track a second here to the joy of a few I’m sure; I said the flowers looked like a dead ringer for T. terscheckii based upon the unopened flowers seen in the first series of photos, but the second series of the fully opened flowers shows some interesting differences which do lean more towards the flower characteristics of T. tacaquirensis, particularly the floral tube. As KT and I have both pointed out though, there does appear to be intergrades…in this case maybe its an intergrade of T. terscheckii and T. tacaquirensis.

Like i have said before, when it comes to names, i name them as i get them these days as it helps me to remember origins and often the lil stories behind them. Throwing them into a pile of which they most fit if they arent labelled by the previous owner/seller. Ill leave the slueth work and the niitty gritty to the experts so they can tell people when they are right or wrong, thats what experts are for no? The "Im more right than you" thing is just boring now, yes it helps ppl to discuss and gets questions asked that may not have been asked previously but ill leave that to the "experts" and then decide for myself when it comes to putting ink to tag, sometimes the "discussions" can seem a rather forced affair. There is only so many piles to throw into.

Yep, only so many piles for sure, and I’m like you in that I keep the name the plant came with unless there is the most obvious error…like getting a plant that is clearly T. bridgesii as a T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus. And I am no expert and have never ever made a claim even slightly close. My problem is that people enjoy considering me an expert when I’m clearly not…either that or they like to belittle my ideas by telling me I’m not an expert…as though I made the claim in the first place. When is everyone going to finally get that I am only a hobbyist like the rest of you and in many cases don’t deserve either the accolades or the disparagement.

Im heading out to see robert soon again and this time i will actually try and get some questions fully answered and write them down this time. Cant say if they will be detailed answers as he does go off in different directions with his conversations sometimes but i will try. I doubt it will solve much though, we all like a lil bit of mystery dont we?

 

Well now, see what I did by pressing the issue? I got both Bretloth and PD to say they will take better care when talking to Robert about the plant next time they visit. That’s a good enough result for me. Thanks guys!

~Michael~

Edited December 18, 2011 by M S Smith

[PD.]

I’m going to back track a second here to the joy of a few I’m sure; I said the flowers looked like a dead ringer for T. terscheckii based upon the unopened flowers seen in the first series of photos, but the second series of the fully opened flowers shows some interesting differences which do lean more towards the flower characteristics of T. tacaquirensis, particularly the floral tube. As KT and I have both pointed out though, there does appear to be intergrades…in this case maybe its an intergrade of T. terscheckii and T. tacaquirensis.

There is another plant of the same type in victoria that a few have questioned as to its ID of terscheckii due to its spine size and branching. Unopened flowers are the short fat lil numbers (you must excuse my flair for scientific descriptions ) youd expect from a terscheck type but open they look different. That said the plants in this particular garden are more than likely the product of recent cross breeding and when i say recent i mean in the last 30 odd years.

As for you pressing the issue Michael, well my plans to go back to Roberts have been in the works for well over 12 months now, probably more as i cant recall how long ago i visited and the idea to actually write down what we talked about came about as soon as i drove out his gate as i was just overloaded with information. That and some time ago i was asked to collect some DNA samples.

I endeavour to get the whole story, from the first tiny lil mail order plant to present day, then like many before me ill ask to do a few days work for him lol.

Honestly Michael, if it werent for ppl such as yourself that constantly pick apart each and every speculation or "fact" as some people present them then our understanding of these plants would be all the poorer imo. Like i said, you are at your best when the arguments start as the info you seem to dig up from nowhere to prove your points would otherwise be lost to most and the hearsay and stories would remain. Some ppl dont care what their plants are and just collect them for their beauty but without those that hunt for the proper then the piles as such would be very boring and we could all end up like a well known collector here in victoria, "They are all just san pedro".

[Bretloth]

Drop in on your way through PD, i'll give you that pollen.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Bretloth

[shruman]

"There is another plant of the same type in victoria that a few have questioned as to its ID of terscheckii due to its spine size and branching. Unopened flowers are the short fat lil numbers (you must excuse my flair for scientific descriptions ) youd expect from a terscheck type but open they look different. That said the plants in this particular garden are more than likely the product of recent cross breeding and when i say recent i mean in the last 30 odd years."

As well as its girth, spine shape & areole spacing. I think alot of what he calls pascana has alot more resmeblance to terscheckii than whatever that is, personaly that thing makes me wonder what the hell a chilensis is?, which seems to be one of if not the most variable & understudied species... apparently theres a big one in WA?... quite a few of his came from WA originaly?... or maybe just another 'hybrid' like you say ;). From memory though he did'nt have a name for that plant?, were you the one to attach terscheckii to it PD?, I remember a thread where you were asking people to ID it among others.

The valida is certainly a slow grower for me, I have a couple of little pups that are just grinding along.

So he calls it Terscheckii valida? thats how I got mine, presumably by way of Roberts garden. He does'nt call it Echinopsis valida?

T. validus (Monv.) Backbg. (1)

Bo. becoming tree-like(?), known till now only as stout, erect columns, green; St. to 35 cm 25; Ri. c. 10; Ar. fairly large above, to 3 cm apart; Sp. few or weak at the apex, developing later in the lower half of the Ar., pale yellow, sometimes darker above; Rsp. 7—10, to 3.2 cm long., the bottom one longest; Csp. 1—2, to 7 cm long.; Fl. to 14 cm long., white, with light greyish-brown H.; Fr. ovoid, woolly.—SE. Bolivia(?). Long known in collections as Echinopsis valida Monv.

Experts BWAHAHAHAAAA

Dedicated amateurs, I think its pretty clear we all do it for love (arguably obsession) not money...

[PD.]

were you the one to attach terscheckii to it PD?, I remember a thread where you were asking people to ID it among others.

Not at all, the owner of the garden "attached" the name when i got a cutting. I guess if you try an ID a plant from one or two cuttings it can make things hard and as for girth, well i guess you never did look at the pictures of the mother plant i sent you, no question there, its well fat enough to fit in the basket. Im starting to wonder if we are even talking about the same plant? Perhaps the problem with the ID of plants from the garden in question is the owners sometimes apathetic attitude toward correct ID as some would like it, its often hard to get anything other than "its a hybrid" or "they are all san pedro" out of him but with so many different types of cacti who can really blame him, he also has a commercial vegie farm to run. Perhaps he just doesnt really have the love for trichos as he does for others or perhaps he just does it for the love of all cacti. I dont know, im not him so i cant tell you. As for the original plants coming from WA im not too sure, i thought it was SA but was a long time ago when that was talked about and very brief so id have to ask again to give the right answer about that. Has been a long while since i have visited there and the last few times he wasnt available, only his wife or son were around but i might just head out for a visit on the way west in a week or two.

I have asked for IDs for quiet a number of plants from there and other places, is good to hear others opinions and to show something different that hasnt been seen by many if any here. Shit, i have only been collecting for 6 or so years so its no surprise i have asked for an id here and there, sharing and getting opinions is just another way of learning amongst others, we cant all be eddy expert by reading script itself, sometimes asking questions is a good thing not something to be ashamed of.

So he calls it Terscheckii valida? thats how I got mine, presumably by way of Roberts garden. He does'nt call it Echinopsis valida?

Who is "he"? The cutting i got from fields was labelled Trich. validus from memory. Like I have said over and over, the label they come with is what generally stays in my collection unless its blindingly obvious and as has. been mentioned, the number of baskets (according to modern nomenclature) is gettting smaller and smaller.

I think its pretty clear we all do it for love (arguably obsession) not money.

I never mentioned anything about money..... or is that just a dig? do experts get paid? really dont get that one but if its just a dig ya got me smilin. When ya can turn passion into profit ya doin it right.

[M S Smith]

"Echinopsis forbesii (Lab.) A.Dietr.

This was obtained as a seedling back in the 1930s. Its now around 9 feet tall.

Huntington

Backeberg thought this a form of validus.

Borg noted occurrences in Paraguay which is where this plant's line was originally sourced.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ii_HBG_kt_1.jpg "

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

~Michael~

[PD.]

Im still trying to find the picture i have of the "valida" or "validus" from fields garden but from memory it wasnt much good for ID purposes, was at a distance. Im quiet sure he wrote the name valida on the list of plants and then validus on the plant tag, no biggie afaic though may be to others, not sure. As for the "terscheckii" from the other collection all i have is these pics which i have shown more than a few times. As already noted the spination is strange, throwing the long central at times. Is easy to see the size of the plant by comparing it to the spachianus or whatever it may be to the right in the first picture.

and here is what fields has as chilensis.....

I will be getting better pictures of both collections soon.

[tripsis]

Here are my photos of the above plants, taken just a couple of weeks ago.

T. terscheckii from Cactus Country.

T. validus fom Field's.

T. chilensis from Field's.

[bit]

None of those plants look like what I've been calling Terscheckii

[tripsis]

Trichocereus tersckeckii is a highly variable species bit. Basing your idea of what is looks like from a single plant is rather limiting. I'm no expert, but the variability I've seen is pretty confusing when trying to assign an ID to a suspected plant.

Bretloth posted a photo of the 'T. terscheckioides' earlier in the thread, but here it is again:

Below is a photo of another form of T. terscheckii from interbeing:

Very similar to the above form is one posted by M. S. Smith over at the Nook.

Here are some others from Cactus Country, though I'm unsure whether they're T. pasacana or T. terscheckii. I presume at least one is the former, but I find it difficult distinguishing the two species from one another at present.

This one was labelled, but I forget was as. T. terscheckii?

T. pasacana?

T. terscheckii?