2 more that need ID

[zelly]

I've had these two like forever. The first one blooms profusely & is self fertile, setting fruits & seeds regularly.

Possibly a cereus of some sorts.

The second one flowers 1x or 2x yearly, and has set seed only once. The snails seem to love it & it's relatively spineless

[Evil Genius]

Hi Zelly, where do you pull these rare cacti from? Your pics almost look like they´d grow in habitat and are as usual WAY cool.

About the pics. Not sure if its possible to ID them like that without pics of the open flowers so it would be cool if you´d post some more shots from the flowers or seed pods and add some info about how they branch and when they flower. Like day or night.

I think the second one is a Browningia, probably pileifer. Ritter brought at least 3 diffrent types of them in cultivation and i´ve seen some that look like this. Alternatively this could be some kind of cereus hexagonus but its not hexagonousely.

First one is rather difficult to say without having seen it from a larger distance and closeups of the open flower so it would be could to know if it branches like an Armatocereus. Because that is my suspicion. But i need more data about it. Have the flowers small spines? Or are they totally bold? That would be the start. But i need more shots from the flower from diffrent angles before i can say anything about it.

[shortly]

Shouldn't Armatocereus have a segmented sausage look about it EG?

[Evil Genius]

Exactly. Thats why i want to see a shot from the distance. Some of them grow less segmentedly than others and you´d need to see a bigger plant than what i can see on the pic. The spination would fit for some of the rarer Armatocereus but im not so sure without getting a few more infos about it. My first idea with that one was gymnanthocereus aka Browningia too but i cant really rule that out without seeing closeups either. It could as well be one of the other more rare columnar cacti but the spination looks a bit like an Armatocereus.

[Evil Genius]

And btw, from what i can see, the flower looks very similar to some from the genus Pilosocereus and/or Cipocereus so i´d say it would be easiest to rule out Armatocereus first if the segmented growth habit is not there. The most important thing that might lead us to the name of the cactus is the naked hairless flower with the small dots that look like they are some relicts from spines that have degraded over centuries. There are not that many columnar cacti that flower like that. But still enough to be rather difficult to ID. And since some other smaller groups of cereoid Columnar cacti were lumped into the genus Cereus recently, it could even be one from there too. Flower would fit there too. If its not possible to say for sure what species it is, you have to rule out others first, starting by the easiest ones.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Evil Genius

[Evil Genius]

Ok, im getting closer by ruling out others. Flower looks VERY similar to Stenocereus thurberi and i think that the spination of Stenocereus fits as well. Zelly, is this a local species of yours or where did you get it from? They originate from the US and Mexico. If its not thurberi, it is very likely a closely related species.

[shortly]

Hmmm doesnt look much like Steno thurberi to me, perhaps a little like S queretaroensis?

"some other smaller groups of cereoid Columnar cacti were lumped into the genus Cereus recently" Thats interesting, which ones?

[shortly]

Regardless its a bloody beautiful plant

[Evil Genius]

I go with "No Idea" for now because there are at least three local varieties of Stenocereus thurberi and i only know one so i am not sure where to go now. If that pic http://de.123rf.com/photo_1414788_stenocereus-thurberi-arten-blume.html really shows a variety of Stenocereus thurberi, its zellys plant because it is probably the same flower. But the flower in the link could also be mis-id´d so not sure.

Thats interesting, which ones?

There were encluded some cacti from Piptanthocereus, Pilosocereus, Cephalocereus, Monviella and and and. Cereus Taxonomy is a mess and im glad im not the one who did that.

[shortly]

I'm with you on the taxonomic mess, its seriously F'dup. And probably not going to get much better anytime soon.

Based on old fashioned floral morphology how is a Pilosocereus close enough to be in cereus?? Was the revision done on DNA results do you know?

[shortly]

Do you know if all the varieties of Steno thurberi have the beautiful russet areolas?

[Evil Genius]

Well the problem is that some of the Cacti that were in families like pilosocereus as an example were mostly placed there because they didnt know where to put them in. Like 30-40 years ago. Meanwhile there is a lot of genetical work done on this and im sure it will be possible to sort some of these problems out within the next 30-50 years. A problem is that most people who were describing the cacti back then didnt even collect an areole sample or stuff like that. Many of them were describing a cactus from a picture sometimes, without having seen how and where it grows in habitat. So now you have the description of a cactus that is like 100 years old and only comes with a bad drawing. You can say that many taxonomic decisions are based on mis-informations and misunderstandings and no genetic testing might be able to solve this problem. You gotta have like 30-50 old books to sort this shit out; if you can. Whenever i try to ID a rare cactus, i have like 10 books in front of me because some of the rarer ones were only pictured once or twice and depending on the quality of the picture, this can be nearly impossible. You´d be surprised how many Columnar cacti have no available data or pics about the flower and the fruit.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Evil Genius

[Evil Genius]

Do you know if all the varieties of Steno thurberi have the beautiful russet areolas?

Unfortunately not. Far from being an expert on thurberi because the only one i had was like 20 centimeters tall and it looked diffrent than zellys. But i´ve seen some pics of it that come very close to the plant in zellys pics. You know, most cacti have an adult form and a form they have when they are young. Both can be very different to each other and we´d need someone from the US who knows how the local Stenocereus can look when they are very old. I assume the one in Zellys pic is very old and probably older than most ones you would find on the open market.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Evil Genius

[zelly]

Ok Here's some more pics & data:

The flowers on #1 open at dusk & then close a few hours after the sun comes up. I took the flower pics after the sun had been up 3 hrs or so. The plant definitely grows in a segmented format and has 10-11 ribs. The skin on the reddish fruit is smooth & both it & the flowers are completely spineless.

I got plant #1as a potted plant when I inherited the bulk of an old timers collection 20 yrs ago & I bought #2 from an old timer cactus collector who had a now defunct cactus retail business. The one I bought was a 1 of a kind in his store and maybe a third of the size it is today.

Plant # 2 is unlike any columnar cactus I've ever seen. The 10 ribs are very well defined, thick & quite firm. The plant looks like it too grows in a segmented pattern and is a slow grower. Near the base the rib depth averages 4cm and the girth is around 53 cm. I'd have to look long & hard to find a pic of its flower, but as I recall it's somewhat similar to the flower for plant #1 with more white to it, and the fruit was also smooth. I got about a dozen seeds from its last fruit. It's a little over 2 meters tall.

[shortly]

Its just that of the few adult specimens of thurberi i have seen about, often accompanied by some young progeny, they show a fair bit of variation in # of ribs and spines but all have the beautiful russet areolas, even the ones several decades old. Of course it is possible they could all have come from the same seed source so be siblings or cousins etc?

"You´d be surprised how many Columnar cacti have no available data or pics about the flower and the fruit." I know all too well, what i find it bemusing is that it appears that more than a few were either deliberately cultivated or at least "wild managed" for their fruit for millennia by the indigenous peoples & yet we have to start again from scratch

[shortly]

Does the fruit have spines Zelly?

[Evil Genius]

Yeah one is an Armatocereus. Maybe Armatocereus Godingianus, Matucanensis or Rauhii. Will check it out later today or tomorrow. Will also check the second one out again too. The word that constantly comes into my head when looking at the pic is "Gymnanthocereus" or "Gymnocereus". Which is now considered Browningia.

Edit: Zelly, if you´ve seen the fruit of No. 1, please let me know if its green at first and turns brown after some time.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Evil Genius

[shortly]

OK my 2c worth is Cereus validus group or at least what i've seen labeled as validus.

If it were a steno it should have a spined or distinctly scaled flower which it doesn't.

Stunning plant though Zelly & a beautiful garden.

Nope had a second look at the plant & i recon EG could be on the money with Armatocereus, dunno which one, i've only seen one in flower & that had stumpy recurved petals & sepals

Edited May 30, 2012 by shortly

[Evil Genius]

And i think you could be right as well. You know, i believe its an Armatocereus because of the segmented look. All the cereus Validus i had did not have that. But i´ve never seen a Cereus Validus of that size so will need to check very closely tomorrow with hindsight on cereus validus. Its about bedtime here and my eyes arent good anymore for today. Too much internetporn. ;)

Edited May 30, 2012 by Evil Genius

[shortly]

The flower looks very much like validus but the habit of the plant screams otherwise.

If you have some Armatocereus flower or fruit pic's i'd be keen to see what they look like

[zelly]

I dont ever recall the fruit starting out green. although it's entirely possible. The mature fruit is a pinkish red and around 6-8 cms in dia with white flesh inside.

The skin on the fruit is smooth & both it & the flowers are completely spineless.

[Evil Genius]

And here we go again. Shortly, i totally agree because of the flower. Flower looks exactly like Cereus Validus. At a certain point this morning i was pretty sure its Cereus Validus. But here´s what does not fit: The Ribs. It has too many. Most cereus, including Validus only have 4-8. This one has at least 10. If this is because it is so old or because it is another species, i dont know. Also, the spination doesnt fit for what i know as Validus either. At this point, i really think it is some kind of Cereus. Because of Zellys description we can rule out Armatocereus because it has spines on the fruit. I should mention that Cereus Validus is a highly doubtful species because the original Cereus Validus that was described in a Herbsbook that was published between 1500-1600 was probably a Cereus Hildmannianus. Cereus Hildmannianus grows segmentedly but has not enough ribs either. And has less pronounced spines. The Variety Cereus Hildmannianus var. Uruguayanus would fit from the looks but doesnt have enough ribs either. It has to be a glauceous cereus so many of them fall out right from the beginning. At this point, i think it could be Uruguayensis but im far from sure.