Can some people please give me some indentification on my neglected garden.

[fermentedfrog]

Edited April 21, 2013 by fermentedfrog

[fermentedfrog]

First four are pachanoi.

[tipz]

next two peruvianoid/cuzcoid. The rest seem like bridgesii too me ( first five are pach - pc I would say )

Edited April 21, 2013 by tipz

[quarterflesh]

first one looks bridg,2-5 look like pach, 6 looks cuzco maybe 7 looks peruvian rest look bridge

Edited April 21, 2013 by quarterflesh

[fermentedfrog]

woops they didn't up load properly, 2, 3, 4 are pach

[qualia]

they don't look neglected at all, rather healthy i'd say.

[bogfrog]

^

I was just thinking the same thing,

don't be so humble

[fermentedfrog]

1,8,9,10,11 are bridgesii

2,3,4, are pachonoi

5,6,7 are all different

and 5 is not pachanoi it has smaller spines

please help

[fermentedfrog]

6 is im certain is peruvianius

[qualia]

5 could be scop hybrid?

7 looks peruvianoid as well.

[Stillman]

5 looks pach to me perhaps scop in there but I'd let it get bigger before I'd make a call.

[zelly]

^^^^^ what quarterflesh said.

Plant 'em in your garden & they'll become a lot easier for you to distinguish their similarities and differences.

[M S Smith]

My thoughts....

T. bridgesii

T. mutt

T. mutt

T. mutt

T. "pachanot"

T. cuzcoensis

T. peruvianus of the sort often called T. macrogonus

T. bridgesii

T. bridgesii

T. bridgesii

T. bridgesii

~Michael~

[woof woof woof]

they are all the wrong type of cacti, and they look very neglected indeed,... you could make me and the cacti very happy by sending them all over! ;-)

hehe,... joking,... nice cacti!!

Mr MS Smit knows his stuff well,...his opinion as a base, and that of some of the others should help you well on your way to pin point what you have.