Peruvianus experts needed.

[Bryce]

A while back I ordered some Trichocereus peruvianus / Echinopsis peruvinana and then recently I ordered some more. I noted some things different about my new cuttings and I wonder about subspecies, variety, or hybrids. I will post pictures then comment on my opinions and then I need someone to tell me if I have an idea about what I am talking about.

Some things I noted about the first peruvianus I purchased was that they had long central spines surrounded by a star shape of spines pointing outward, and deep furrowed ribs with a sharp crease in the bottom of the furrow. I also noted the deep green and bluish tint. These standards I used to compare the new cuttings. I will note the differences I see in each picture compared to my origianals.

This first is of a cactus I was sent as peruvianus. It is green with no bluish tint. Ribs are not very deep and as it grows the ribs become shallow to almost flat.

This next picture is a peruvianus I was sent but when I put it next to my bridgesii I noticed it looked more like that than my original peruvianus. The ribs were very shallow and the bluish pattern was exactly the same as the bridgesii. I also notied it does not have the long central spine and neither does my bridgesii. I believe it is a bridgesii x peruvianus.

This cutting is a big one. It has deep ribs and are sharply creased in the bottom and has the central spines. This was sent to me not identified. I have noted that it is pretty much green with maybe the slightest hint of bluish. I have considered it maybe a cuzcoensis. It looks bluish in the picture but you don't see that in real life.

This is a picture that I included one of my original peruvianus on the far left that I used as a map to judge the other 3 new ones.

[Evil Genius]

Hi bryce, yes very nice. Color ist not important since it ix extremely dependant on the enviroment. Looks like a Tarma type Peruvianus, which is VERY close to KK242 cuzcoensis. All three are most likely the same type.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Evil Genius

[Bryce]

What about rib depth and lack of central spines in number 2.

[Evil Genius]

What about them? Yes, the specimens clearly show some variations, but nonetheless, all are from the Tarmaensis/KK242 Group. This is pretty much unrelated to how many spines they may have or how pronounced the rib Depth may be. The Last One looks a little bit more KK242 (Cuzcoensis) than the Others, why i would think that one and two look a little bit more like the Tarma type than three. But wouldn´t be surprised if they´d grown out the same seed batch. Again, there is a HUGE variation in these Cacti and none of them look like they´d been grown under optimal conditions. They aren´t sick or anything like that but if they get full sun and full nutrients, the spines and color may look totally different.

[Bryce]

All 3 cactus came from different parts of the United States. I feel you on the 1 and 3 but the middle one seems to look so much like my bridgesii it is baffles me. I thought that 1 and 3 probably were related and I am glad to have some confirmation to that.

I was not sure if rib depth had any sort of factor so things like this I need to learn. I think the middle one probably does need more time to grow out. I was sent 2 pieces of the middle one and I sent one to a buy making a cactus botanical in south Florida and I hope I gave hime the proper ID.

Also another question. Is it Echinopsis cuzcoensis or is it Echinopsis peruviana ssp. cuzcoensis?

[Evil Genius]

Yeah, number two is not a bridgesii. And please understand that a peruvianus from Tarma may be similar to some types of kk242 but it's not kk242 cuzcoensis. They look similar to kk242 rio lurin for example, which is a different cactus than cuzcoensis and more towards a standard peru. But still related to the whole group. And it doesnt really matter where in America you got them since most come from the same supplier. Kk242 and relatives are everywhere.

And again,number one is tarmaensis for sure, number two is a type of peruvianis which is very similar and might be kk242 rio lurin and three is cuzcoensis. Two ist NOT a kk242 cuzcoensis.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Evil Genius

[Bryce]

I looked up the kk242 and I see what you mean.

[Evil Genius]

Will respond more detailed tomorrow. Its about bedtime and i wear my lucky pyjama.

[prier]

Grow them all under the same conditions for three years then get back to us.

[spinyGator]

i got an exact plant like your #3, however, it from zircon on ebay. After growing for 3 years, i chopped it down and feed it to my turtles (if you know what i mean)

[solaritea]

#3 looks familiar. Probably E. cuzcoensis from Berkeley Botanical Garden. Not sure of the collection number yet.

[mutant]

Bryce, let me congratulate you for your nice presentation of pics and views..

note1 you show your older peruvianus (far left) to compare with the other 3 but you dont show a close of one of it.. are the spines cut?

note2 when I read "all 3 are the same" from EG, I am like "What???" , ok we got to study this...

note3 I disagree with EGs comment that the colour is not important, I think it is, but several people claim this so I am kind of a minority.. IMO peruvianus and macrogonus and cuzcoensis are usually very very blue... bluer than bridgesii

note4 The rib depth on the other hand is not so important, as this strongly depends on how pumped (watered) a cactus is.. a dehydrated trichocereus can look like a cereus in the untrained eye.

note5 on a fun note: you shouldnt have put "experts" in the title. this way MS Smith, might be put off to offer his always interesting opinion... [he doesn't want to be called expert]

note6 you should have included the cuttings past info: how long have they been in that position and growing, how long since they were potted etc..

so my initial thoughts was:

#1 is tricky, but it doesn't look much of peruvianoid

#2 is a good peruvianus

#3 at first I thought spinier peruvianus, I am now more inclined towards cuzcoensis...

then again, #1 might be cuzco as well, or it might be something like pachanoi X bridgesii ....

Bryce,

Trichocereus taxonomy is very messed up right now.. Around here we use the name Trichocereus (and not echinopsis) for larger columnars.

T.cuzcoensis seems to be related to the peruvianus/macrogonus/pachanoi complex, but most people treat it like a different species and it can be distincted from peruvianus , bridgesii or pachanois... but as time goes by more and more hybrid are possible to sprout in horticulture and the scene, creating more confusion and new conversations for us tireless taxonomy debaters!

PS: the more I see #3, the more I believe it might be cuzco after all...

PS2: nice cacti, the #2 is your true peruvianus IMO