help confirm the identity of my cacti

[myco]

hi all

i was hoping some of you could help confirm the identity of my cacti

the first lot i bought about 10 yrs ago from earthpod

(for anyone who doesnt know earthpod was an old site that was part of shaman australis)

i assume the identity of these is correct

they were sold to me as peruvian torch

and the person who used to run the site is probably a part of the forums

so im not doubting thier identity i was just hoping someone could confirm this

i dont know a whole lot about id'ing cacti so yeh any help would be great

the second ones a friend obtained a few yrs ago from ebay

and possibly someone else who is a part of the forums i dont know

they were sold as pedro's

if anyone can confirm this or add more are they varients watever info would be nice to know for sure

i know theres alot of very knowledgeable people on here that may be able to help

so thanks in advance for any help

and sorry the image qaulity isnt the best i was trying to be quick

these are the suspected peruvian torch wich seem to have a very specific way of growing

they always grow up very tall and skinny with a slightly fatter top and then the rest slowly fattens up

and these are the suspected san pedro wich just grow fat unlike the growth of the peruvian torches

[dionysus]

certainly no expert, but id say the first is PC pach (syn. pachanot etc) and second the same, the third could be pach x bridge and the fourth a straight pach.

edit: missed the second one somehow

Edited December 12, 2011 by dionysus

[cactuscarl]

Yeah they all look like pachanoi to me the third one looks like a hybrid but i probably wouldn't say bridgesii probably something bigger

[myco]

i would have to check with my friend who i got the second 2 cuttings from but im pretty sure they are both from the same plant

they might not be though i think he got 2 or 3 cuttings that were all sold to him as pedro

actually im pretty sure he bought one cutting that was cut into 2 or 3 pieces

for postage reasons i would have to confirm this but im pretty sure thats wat happened

so the first 2 pics should be the same thing

and the same with the second 2 pics they should be the same thing

Edited December 12, 2011 by myco

[Foo]

All look pachanoi to me except 3 wich has been crossed no doubt.

[myco]

i should also point out the difference in colour i dont know if this really means anything

but its definately not due to the sun or anything because they all sit in tha same spot and always have

the ones i bought as peruvian torch have always been that much lighter almost yellowish colour

compared to the ones my friend obtained wich are a much darker green

[GoOnThen]

Have the first ones been in those pots the whole time if they have give them some fresh mix then give them regular feeds they should green up

This time of the year I find most of my Pach's are a little on the yellow side but after a few feeds of seasol and ferts they start getting their colour back.

Cheers

Got

[myco]

no they definately havent been in the same pots for 10 yrs

i would never do that haha

they've been repotted many times over the years they just always seem to stay that colour

im not really sure why but they've always been like that

no matter wat i do to them or where they are placed they always have that same much lighter colouring

sometimes they get a little greener especially the smaller pups and cuttings but they never get as dark as the other ones

[myco]

the colouring may just be due to the way i have cared for them

they are in different soil to the others i dont really know

i think the biggest difference is the way they grow the suspected peruvian torches

have always grown in that strange way

as i said earlier they always grow up tall and skinny and then slowly fatten out after a while

[ballzac]

The third is quite distinctive, but it looks, to me, to be well within the genetic variations of the predominant cultivar. I don't think it's crossed with anything at all.

[GoOnThen]

Sorry myco I shouldn’t have presumed you would have left them in the same mix all that time

I am amazed all of the time with people (not here) that buy a cacti and think that they never have to look after it other than giving it a splash of water a few times in summer and they sit in the same little terracotta pot for years and years.

Cheers

Got

[myco]

haha its all good i didnt take offence to that or anything

i know wat you mean theyre hardy things cacti but you do have to look after em

the bottoms are pretty messed up looking i know they never threw pups out for some reason

so they were chopped at the bottom like that about 5 years ago so that they would

now i just use them as stock and take the pups off every year or 2 to build up the collection

i'll probly take that big tall one off soon cos he's not throwing out any more pups

but once i chop the big guy off he'll have no choice haha

[Foo]

no1 seems to have semi inverted spines at places, esp the top.

[ballzac]

BTW, pic 1 looks etiolated to me, rather than being anything in particular about the plants genetics. The reason I say this is that the stump itself is a lot thicker than the new growth, which means that, genetically, there is nothing stopping it getting fat. In addition to this, the 8" or so where it is quite narrow shows that it spent a few summer months with insufficient light to get to full girth. After they get that way, it takes a while for them to fatten up. The skinniness could also result, in part, from the small size of the stump, in conjunction with the small size of the pot.

You say you've had them for a while and they always grow like that, but I'm not convinced that it isn't something to do with the conditions you're providing them. If you have pics of the other plants that have come off that same stump, I'd love to look at them to help confirm (or contradict) my suspicions.

They all look like your basic, regular, garden variety PC pachanoi though, as I said before, the third one is very distinctive. Regardless of whether it's just an unusual PC pach, or something more 'exotic', it looks very interesting and I think you're lucky to have it in your collection.

[myco]

heres another cutting that was taken about 3 yrs ago

and has always been in a position to get full sun all day

as you can see it still grows in the same way tall and skinny before slowly fattening up

wich it is starting to do now once it fattens up it will shoot up tall and skinny again then slowly fatten out

in fact before they were ever chopped at the bottom at one point i actually had to place a couple of pieces of bamboo

around it to hold it up as the tops were starting to bend over

this has just always been thier growth pattern since i got them around 10 yrs ago it never changes

Edited December 13, 2011 by myco

[myco]

i must say im kinda dissapointed that noone seems to think the so called peruvian torches are not wat they were sold to me as

i feel a bit ripped off there

as i said they were bought from earthpod an old site wich was a part of shaman australis

and thought the person was pretty trustworthy he had san pedro for sale aswell

and for the last 10 yrs was always under the assumption that they were peruvian torches so its kinda dissapointing for me

that no one seems to think thats wat they are

kinda sucks

Edited December 13, 2011 by myco

[dionysus]

yeah, sorry myco, but those two plants definately aren't T. Peruvianus.

also, talk of alkaloid content i don't believe is accepted here.

[myco]

sorry i was wondering that i'll edit that part out

it really sucks though ay feel hell ripped off

[dionysus]

i don't think the vendor would have meant to rip you off, it seems 10 years ago there already was a lot of confusion and mislabeling going on by the people who supplied the vendors and a lot of the time things weren't what they seemed. things seem to be a bit better now, a bunnings near me has an identicle plant for sale (colour and strange thin growth and all, when i saw it i assuemd it to be etoliated growth) labelled as pachanoi.

[myco]

yeh i thought it might also just be case of the person not intentionally trying to pass it off as something its not

but not knowing for sure themself or it being mislabeled when they obtained it

still sucks though haha oh well

[ballzac]

heres another cutting that was taken about 3 yrs ago

and has always been in a position to get full sun all day

as you can see it still grows in the same way tall and skinny before slowly fattening up

wich it is starting to do now once it fattens up it will shoot up tall and skinny again then slowly fatten out

in fact before they were ever chopped at the bottom at one point i actually had to place a couple of pieces of bamboo

around it to hold it up as the tops were starting to bend over

this has just always been thier growth pattern since i got them around 10 yrs ago it never changes

 

I don't mean to be argumentative, just stating my opinion on this... That cutting was clearly planted when it was thin. The new growth is thinner where it was busy growing roots, and now that it has roots, the tip is starting to plump up again.

a bunnings near me has an identicle plant for sale (colour and strange thin growth and all, when i saw it i assuemd it to be etoliated growth) labelled as pachanoi.

 

Every bunnings I've ever been to has their cacti kept in shade, either under shadecloth outside, or even inside. The Bunnings near me has a pachanoi of normal width for the first 10", then it's about two inches wide and tapering to even less over the remaining foot. I have never come across a cactus that looks so typically PC that will not grow nice and fat very quickly if in a large pot or the ground, with a strong root system, well-fed and plenty of sunlight and water.

[ballzac]

yeh i thought it might also just be case of the person not intentionally trying to pass it off as something its not

but not knowing for sure themself or it being mislabeled when they obtained it

still sucks though haha oh well

 

Most people ended up with cuzcoensis when they thought they were buying peruvianus. A lot of people would say count yourself lucky that it's a pachanoi, lol. I quite like cuzcoensis, but they're not very popular, lol.

[myco]

I don't mean to be argumentative, just stating my opinion on this... That cutting was clearly planted when it was thin. The new growth is thinner where it was busy growing roots, and now that it has roots, the tip is starting to plump up again.

 

its all good i value your opinion very much

im not trying to be arguementive either

but trust me when i say this once that skinny middle section fattens up

it will do the same thing again it will shoot up tall and skinny and then again slowly fatten out

while the middle section fattens out theres never much of a change in height

its not until it fattens up that it will repeat the process and shoot up tall and skinny before again slowly fattening out

i've had these things for a long time and have other cuttings of them

and they all grow in the same manner no matter wat kind of growing conditions they are given

pretty much the only time they are nice and thick all around is when they are small like the pups in the second picture and the last picture

once they start to get some height to them they will start the strange growth pattern

[myco]

Most people ended up with cuzcoensis when they thought they were buying peruvianus. A lot of people would say count yourself lucky that it's a pachanoi, lol. I quite like cuzcoensis, but they're not very popular, lol.

 

dont get me wrong im happy that they are wat they are

i just wish they were wat they were sold to me as

oh well i'll just have to try obtain some peruvian torch from somwhere else

so everyone is in agreement that they are all just pedro's then ???

Edited December 13, 2011 by myco

[dionysus]

Every bunnings I've ever been to has their cacti kept in shade, either under shadecloth outside, or even inside. The Bunnings near me has a pachanoi of normal width for the first 10", then it's about two inches wide and tapering to even less over the remaining foot. I have never come across a cactus that looks so typically PC that will not grow nice and fat very quickly if in a large pot or the ground, with a strong root system, well-fed and plenty of sunlight and water.

 

i didn't mean to suggest it wasn't etoliated from neglect, im quite sure it was, i just meant it was at a similar stage of growth as myco's and it was labelled more correctly than what it may have been 10 years ago in some places. slightly off topic, but a friend bough me a t. scopilicolus from bunnings last week that was entirely rotted on the inside and all sort of purple at the base, none of it was salvageable and they still sold it. shows how much they care.

[M S Smith]

so everyone is in agreement that they are all just pedro's then ???

 

Yeah, they all look like your average "PC" T. pachanoi.

~Michael~