What would you call these?

[M S Smith]

What would you call these?

~Michael~

Edited April 26, 2014 by M S Smith

[paradox]

probably pc, photographs from more angles might help.. why do i get the feeling this is a trick question?

[hostilis]

Looks like PC to me as well.

[EthnoGuy85]

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.

[Philocacti]

The left one is PC and the right one is a pach

[MrDoRight]

I'd say PC is on the left and Since the cactus on the right looks smoother I'd go with a regular Pachanoi

[Micromegas]

Left PC, right looks scopxbridge

I'm with paradox feels like a trick!

[EthnoGuy85]

This is too easy. What's the catch Mr. smith???

[2XB]

i think right is more likely the pc if the are both not, left looks kinda like super pedro.

[DiscoStu]

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

[hostilis]

Yeah, now that you all mention it the right one does look different. Doesn't have that saw appearance like PC does.

[Halcyon Daze]

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.

[briliant_botanist]

Id say a lovely pair of Cacti'

[M S Smith]

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~

[hostilis]

Looks like a bridgesii to me. Lol. But looks can be deceiving.

[zed240]

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!

[Getafix]

I am going to run with SS02 x Jules Giant

[Dreamwalker.]

bridgesii

[M S Smith]

[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~

[mutant]

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..

[hostilis]

I said pc because it looked like a PC to me. Not because I'm a sheep.

[Bryce]

Looks like PC to me as well.

What does PC mean. I see the term non PC on Trichocereus for sale all the time.

[djmattz0r]

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

[zed240]

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.

[M S Smith]

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

[zed240]

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