M S Smith Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) What would you call these? ~Michael~ Edited April 26, 2014 by M S Smith Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 paradox Posted April 27, 2014 probably pc, photographs from more angles might help.. why do i get the feeling this is a trick question? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 hostilis Posted April 27, 2014 Looks like PC to me as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 EthnoGuy85 Posted April 27, 2014 I never thought I'd be answering an ID question from this guy..... Left I'd say PC right looks like a legit pachanoi but what do I know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Philocacti Posted April 27, 2014 The left one is PC and the right one is a pach Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 MrDoRight Posted April 27, 2014 I'd say PC is on the left and Since the cactus on the right looks smoother I'd go with a regular Pachanoi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Micromegas Posted April 27, 2014 Left PC, right looks scopxbridge I'm with paradox feels like a trick! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 EthnoGuy85 Posted April 27, 2014 This is too easy. What's the catch Mr. smith??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 2XB Posted April 27, 2014 i think right is more likely the pc if the are both not, left looks kinda like super pedro. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 DiscoStu Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) macrogonus but srs right looks like scop/bridge, ima say left is scope cross too, scope/pach edit: reasoning: areoles on the right look like bridgesii spacing and with scop "ridged"/angular ribs, also the tip looks "pointed" as seen in scope and bridges forms, left looks more like pach spacing areoles and rounded pach tip, ribs remind me of pc (incurved between areoles) but then bridges have that as well, but then they could both be the same plant as well, edit2: or a scop super pedro, humph i dunno..... Edited April 27, 2014 by bot6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 hostilis Posted April 27, 2014 Yeah, now that you all mention it the right one does look different. Doesn't have that saw appearance like PC does. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Halcyon Daze Posted April 27, 2014 The plant on the right has ribs that look kinda 'sharper' than those of PC which are more rounded. My guess , Myrtillocactus, sorry Mr Smith , you bombed out this time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 briliant_botanist Posted April 27, 2014 Id say a lovely pair of Cacti' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 M S Smith Posted April 28, 2014 I think brilliant botanist nailed it best, but anyhow this was certainly a little test. If someone showed me the two plants I would have without reservation said both were PC. What I wanted to point out is something I've said a couple times about how hybridization has the ability to cause a great deal of confusion in the species debate and that before long, with lost labels, mislabels, and open pollinated plants, we may just end up calling plants whatever standard "pure" species they most look like. I grew both from seed and selected from among the many seedlings those with the shortest spines, this while with few exceptions I got rid of all the others through trade or sale. The two plants are, on the left, T. pachanoi "Juuls Giant" x T. pachanoi and on the right Duchie's "T.macrogonus(?) 'Big Bluey' x T. pachanoi 'Highbury'" The Juuls is a proper T. pachanoi of Peru while the "Big Bluey" is with little doubt T. peruvianus. I suspect that in both cases the fathers are your average PC considering the growth habit of these plants. Anyone want to take a guess on this one? ~Michael~ 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 hostilis Posted April 28, 2014 Looks like a bridgesii to me. Lol. But looks can be deceiving. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 zed240 Posted April 28, 2014 Yeah, definitely looks very bridgesii to me, but those reddish spines on top make me think something else is in the mix... I have a couple of trichs that I'd call Peruvianus that have quite red spines on the newer growth so maybe Bridgesii crossed with a Peru? Although there is a smaller number of spines than I'd expect for peru... Hmm, very keen to find out what this one is! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Getafix Posted April 28, 2014 I am going to run with SS02 x Jules Giant 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 M S Smith Posted April 29, 2014 [T. pachanoi "JuulsGiant" x T. peruvianus] x Tbridgesii (SS02) If someone showed it to me I would say it was simply T. bridgesii. Here's another of the same. ~Michael~ 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 mutant Posted May 17, 2014 Your test proves most people have no idea on IDing, I mean they have no ID eye and also what kind of sheep we people are... The reason people started saying this was a PC is that they started repeating what others said, starting with a respected and experience member. Herd mentality. Note nobody said why they think its a PC and I would really like to hear why they thought it was... And not only that they were stating it with great certainty, while the cacti obviously do not look definate PC and they look at least a bit different from oneother... I would never ID this with certainty as PC and it did not look PC to my eyes anywayz. None of them has that "saw" appearance. I find it quite frustrating that some thought that was an 'easy' ID, that is, IDing a clone from a single picture. As for the second, it is indeed simply bridgesii there is nothing on it that says otherwise.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 hostilis Posted May 18, 2014 I said pc because it looked like a PC to me. Not because I'm a sheep. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 Bryce Posted May 18, 2014 Looks like PC to me as well. What does PC mean. I see the term non PC on Trichocereus for sale all the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 djmattz0r Posted May 18, 2014 Predominant Cultivar, it's basically what's bought at box stores in the US as San Pedro. There's discussions on what the actual lineage of the clone came from but I think it was collected by Backberg long ago in South America Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 zed240 Posted May 18, 2014 Predominant Cultivar, it's basically what's bought at box stores in the US as San Pedro. There's discussions on what the actual lineage of the clone came from but I think it was collected by Backberg long ago in South America I think Trout disputes that it originates with Backeberg. He's got a pic up of backebergs on his website, (black and white pic, but you get the idea), and it does look like quite a different cactus to the PC variety. I think he did state in the first edition of San Pedro that he thought it originated from Backeberg but then he posted a correction to those comments. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 M S Smith Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) See my posts #81 for comments and #83 for the photos. http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11911&p=159090 http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11911&p=159093 ~Michael~ Edited May 19, 2014 by M S Smith 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0 zed240 Posted May 19, 2014 Here's the link to Trout's page that has Backeberg's original pic too. Shows the difference between PC and the Backeberg one pretty well I reckon.... http://largelyaccurateinformationmedia.com/LAIM/pedro/Trichocereus_pachanot.html 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What would you call these?
~Michael~
Edited by M S Smith
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites