Jump to content
The Corroboree
bit

Trichocereus Argentinensis in flower

Recommended Posts

Argentinensis is a debatable clone, this is ID'd by myself based on internet pictures of the plant, not the flower (haven't seen any flower pics online). This plant was acquired as a mid section cutting from faslimy - the cutting is FAAT, but the pups (pictured) are not so fat. It's in the ground but not receiving maximum light as it's behind a fence. Will be interesting to see how it goes with regard to fatness in full sun.

_MG_6239web.jpg

_MG_6234web.jpg

_MG_6233web.jpg

_MG_6229web.jpg

Edited by bit
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome flower from a Trich id never heard of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said over at The Nook, identifying it as a particular clone is really a bit too much and is going to cause untold difficulty in the future if it is propagated and passed around. You really should just find a completely new clone name for it to keep it clearly seperate from the original T. argentinensis.

Saying it is T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus, or any degree of intergrade between the two is one thing, but I doubt it would be wise for anyone to call any plant of unknown provenance a T. argentinensis simply because is appeared to look like the original clone, this even more so due to the oceanic divide.

Calling it BIt001, or any other name not in use, and thereby placing clone stastus on it, would be better than calling it an existing clone that it can not be verified as being. I also suspect that the flower of T. argentinensis wouldn't differ in any appreciable degree from either T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus.

Here's my own T. argentinensis for comparison...

5039818831_b72a75d074_o.jpg

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Michael, this plant is unique in my collection, and the most similar plant I've seen is Argentensis. Here's a photo of the new growth showing the same intense blue and very similar spination to yours. The flower is markedly different to pachanoi, and slightly different to peruvianus (as you would expect)..

I don't want to get into an id debate as they go nowhere. Suffice to say this is similar enough to Argentinensis to be dubbed as such, and I'm not really in favour of creating my own clone names if I didn't grow it from seed or sure of it's origins.

_MG_6246web.jpg

Edited by bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Michael, this plant is unique in my collection, and the most similar plant I've seen is Argentensis. Here's a photo of the new growth showing the same intense blue and very similar spination to yours. The flower is markedly different to pachanoi, and slightly different to peruvianus (as you would expect)..

Bit, I hope you know I'm only trying to prevent further confusion regarding these plants, but I have one very serious question for you, should others who find "similar" plants that also show "the same intense blue and very similar spination," and flowers they deem "markedly different to pachanoi, and slightly different to peruvianus," even though having never seen a T. argentinensis flower, also dub their plants T. argentinensis? It's one thing to propose what species, but quite another to determine it as a previously named clone whose species classification still seems uncertain.

I don't want to get into an id debate as they go nowhere.

ID debates go nowhere? Surely you jest.

Well the plant isn't "T. argentinensis" for sure, as that is just a name thrown on a particular clone to indicate it is a Trichocereus found in Argentina...and one which would seem to lack any natural population, indicating that it is an import. There are very few options for what acceptable species your plant is, but no doubt T. peruvianus or T. pachanoi, or a mix of these two, seems most likely.

Suffice to say this is similar enough to Argentinensis to be dubbed as such, and I'm not really in favour of creating my own clone names if I didn't grow it from seed or sure of it's origins.

Now you really have me stumped...so instead of simply providing a clone name of your own, which would be fully appropriate and prevent any confusion with the previous T. argentinensis, you are willing to call a plants whose origins you aren't sure of T. argentinensis. At least with my T. argentinensis I can claim some linage from the original, you unfortunately can't, but do so anyhow by appropriating the name.

But anyhow, time for me to have a closer look at my T. bridgesii to see if any of them look "similar" enough to "Eileen" for me to dub them that...hell I might have a few.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, you bring into dispute the ID of virtually every Tricho in NZ and other countries. For simplicity's sake, if a plant in someone's collection looks like what is regarded as the correct/accurate specimen of a particular clone, then it should be regarded as such until proven otherwise. There is no sense in inventing new names for plants which are practically identical to those with an ID elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, you bring into dispute the ID of virtually every Tricho in NZ and other countries.

Hyperbole aside, to what effect? How often have you seen me question anything other than whether or not something is or is not a particular species? Hell, in most cases I only do this when there is a question of whether or not the plant is either T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus, or if the mistaken ID is obvious, like someone having T. cuzcoensis as T. peruvianus. But never have I gone so far as to attempt to ID a plant based upon whether or not it simply look like another clone, something I have seen over an over at SAB to very little criticism. I think you are completely overlooking the many valid points I already made above.

How can you not see that you err far more than I when you, rather than simply questioning an ID, grant one. Calling your plant T. argentinensis is in fact claiming that your plant is in fact genetically identical to that which Ressler shared.

For simplicity's sake, if a plant in someone's collection looks like what is regarded as the correct/accurate specimen of a particular clone, then it should be regarded as such until proven otherwise.

Do you seriously think that Ressler's T. argentinensis and your "T. argentinensis" wouldn't be able to cross? You presume far too much about your plant, and claiming that "it should be regarded as such until proven otherwise" is so fallacious an idea that it is not even funny. So following this viewpoint if I get a plant that I think matches "Eileen" for simplicities sake I should call it that until someone can prove it's not Eileen. This is completely ass backwards. Presuming it is not T. argentinensis until you can prove it to be is the correct way to prevent confusion and a plethora of T. argentinensis "clones," or any other clone for that matter, flooding the market to the detriment of collectors.

There is no sense in inventing new names for plants which are practically identical to those with an ID elsewhere.

So your T. argentinensis, in being "practically identical" to the Ressler T. argentinensis, should be regarded as its clone, a plant that is genetically identical to it, even though you can't prove it and no one else can disprove it. Nothing to dispute here.

~Michael~

Edited by M S Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But never have I gone so far as to attempt to ID a plant based upon whether or not it simply look like another clone

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

~Michael~

Only one way to find out what they'll look like.

if I was to judge budgerum's plant then I would lean towards calling it T. pachanoi as it looks to be more cultivar than feral. But who really knows, it could be a complete hodgepodge of genes...

Looks like it's just a particularly awesome T. peruvianus to me.

I suspect it a hybrid though as it really has taken on the look of the "PC" T. pachanoi. I

Michael- If, as you stated above, you do not attempt to id a plant based on looks (viewing a picture of it), what pray tell, are you basing your opinions on? Smell? taste? touch? telekinesis?

Believe me, I have been wrong before

no kiddin? :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn zelly, you got it all wrong, my use of qualifiers like "looks" is used with the direct purpose of leaving room open for challenge and my possibly being incorrect. So I am in fact doing just the opposite of what you are accusing me of doing. Jezz.

~Michael~

PS - I must admit though to saying such and such are the PC clone, but that in most cases is obvious to even those who are less informed on these plants than myself.

Edited by M S Smith

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

×