T. Pach or T. Peru Short spine?

[magical9]

I cant tell. is this a real pachanoi or a short spined peruvianus? isnt a short spine peru just a misnomer for a real pachanoi?

[Philocacti]

From my experience, they're both one in the same line but with slightly different variation

So peruvianus have longer spines, fatter girth and are slow growers compared to pachanoi

Experts can give you more useful and specific info ;)

Edited March 31, 2014 by Philocacti

[EthnoGuy85]

My .02.....

I'd label as pachanoi in my collection.

[M S Smith]

Certainly not the particular T. pachanoi clone known as the "Short Spined T. peruvianus," but I could see how someone might say some other T. pachanoi, but I'd image its just a plant on that particular spectrum that ranges from spineless and lemon-green to spine-filled and deeply glaucus. Call it T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus, it's all the same, but still two names do help us all relate.

Here's the "Short Spined T. peruvianus"

~Michael~

[hostilis]

That's a fatty. Nice plant.

[magical9]

Certainly not the particular T. pachanoi clone known as the "Short Spined T. peruvianus," but I could see how someone might say some other T. pachanoi, but I'd image its just a plant on that particular spectrum that ranges from spineless and lemon-green to spine-filled and deeply glaucus. Call it T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus, it's all the same, but still two names do help us all relate.

Here's the "Short Spined T. peruvianus"

SSTperuvianus.jpg

~Michael~

that is such a gorgeous thick cactus. did you grow that? what soil mix do you use ?

Right now i use a 1:1:1 mix of local made really nice cactus/palm mix:SAND:decomposed granite. I cant wait to see my new inground plants take off this season.

[spinyGator]

Certainly not the particular T. pachanoi clone known as the "Short Spined T. peruvianus," but I could see how someone might say some other T. pachanoi, but I'd image its just a plant on that particular spectrum that ranges from spineless and lemon-green to spine-filled and deeply glaucus. Call it T. pachanoi or T. peruvianus, it's all the same, but still two names do help us all relate.

Here's the "Short Spined T. peruvianus"

SSTperuvianus.jpg

~Michael~

C'on Michael, I suspect you had one exact cultivar in your basement, it's called T. Pachanoi "Altman" suspected a T. "Huanucoensis".

[M S Smith]

C'on Michael, I suspect you had one exact cultivar in your basement, it's called T. Pachanoi "Altman" suspected a T. "Huanucoensis".

Not quite sure I understand.

[spinyGator]

Not quite sure I understand.

http://echinopsis.eu/displayimage.php?album=77&pid=1366

[spinyGator]

the two downward parallel spines is a straight giveaway

[M S Smith]

http://echinopsis.eu/displayimage.php?album=77&pid=1366

Oh wow, I totally forgot about that page. Yeah, that particular plant from Altman's definitely is a T. huanucoensis, and the plant that started this thread definitely looks similar, though the higher rib count, and how that makes the plant look overall, threw me off for a second.

~Michael~

[magical9]

This is the same plant from my original post. They are indeed Altman "pachanoi"

Edited June 6, 2014 by magical9

[solaritea]

I passed up an Altman pachanoi yesterday - I better go take a closer look.

[zelly]

Oh wow, I totally forgot about that page. Yeah, that particular plant from Altman's definitely is a T. huanucoensis, and the plant that started this thread definitely looks similar, though the higher rib count, and how that makes the plant look overall, threw me off for a second.

~Michael~

Michael, would you mind explaining to me, and maybe to the rest of us, exactly what qualifies this plant as a huanucoensis, & what led you to make that determination?

the fact of you taking a picture of a plant in your collection makes it whatever you decide to call it?

[M S Smith]

Nothing "qualifies" it besides my own belief in it's affinity, and I've not made any "determination." I've been fairly careful to point out my suspicion that two plants that came into my collection, one as T. pachanoi and one as T peruvianus, were questionably T. huanucoensis. These were compared to T. huanucoensis I got from Sacred Succulents, and to the plant at the Huntington. If I've mistakenly lead others to believe that my suspicions were not suspicions then I apologize, but I suspect you haven't asked me for similar justifications regarding the many plants I've told others were T. cuzcoensis even though not bearing that name because even you take some value from what I say. And lastly, I don't speak to sway, I speak to share my thoughts and have never imposed them on others or demanded my thoughts take precedence over others'. If others believe my positions then that is on them, not me, but I will not restrict my joy of sharing because I lack all certainty.

~Michael~

Edited June 10, 2014 by M S Smith

[zelly]

Yeah, that particular plant from Altman's definitely is a T. huanucoensis

Nothing "qualifies" it besides my own belief in it's affinity, and I've not made any "determination."

By naming the picture you took as "normal_TpachQ_AltmanPlants007.jpg" are you not making the determination (then) the plant more closely resembled a pach?

I mean, why would you label a picture of it as a normal Tpach if you considered it to be a huanucoensis?

On one hand its 'definitely', and on the other hand its merely your belief

and a whole lot of ambiguity in between.

If I've mistaken lead others to believe that my suspicions were not suspicions

Can you say understatement of the century?

What part of definitely is a T. huanucoensis is a suspicion?

because even you take some value from what I say.

Michael, now you're skating on some real thin ice.....

[M S Smith]

The title of my photo is "TpachQ_AltmanPlants007." The "normal" was added by the site and likely has to do with picture size, this while the "Q" stands for "question." So is all my label does is preserve the original name of T. pachanoi, but make note that I, the one who labeled the photo, believes it might be something else. One of the things that make me successful in many aspects of life is that I don't make assumptions, but rather look for the alternative meanings and start my considerations from there.

And yes, that use of "definitely" was probably a bit overstated and granted, a little bit of an oversight from my normal usage. Still just a suspicion in the end though...god forbid I shake up the entire cactus community, that is assuming they don't think for themselves.

zelly, I know you don't dislike me as much as your words make it seem, so I'll stay patient even though I have a feeling this is not something you have a habit of inspiring in others.

~Michael~

[Sallubrious]

Let it go Zelly, Michael said he could have chosen his words better and explained his rationale.

It's time to smoke the peace pipe.

[magical9]

i picture zelly as a fiesty old man someday. "git off my cactus lawn you damn kids!"

/me wishes zelly had more colossus available! would buy!

[hostilis]

[/rant]

By the way for anyone who didn't understand this it was just a joke about all the ranting on this thread. I wasn't ending my own rant. I was never so good with making jokes anyways.

Edited June 11, 2014 by hostilis