what is it??

[Torsten]

I am trying to work out what species this is. I got it from tropical fruit world, so it would have to be a fruit producing species. They had no other scopolicolus looking plants there, so I just assumed that it was a scop.

The flower was a typical trich, very hairy, large white - well it looked identical to any other scop. But then I crossed it with an unrelated scop and the flower dropped off.

Now, my questions are:

Are there any trichs that don't cross pollinate?

Are there any cereoids that have hairy flowers and are not trichs?

If this is a scop, it doesn't quite fit the general description. It has knobby ridges like the knobs below the areoles on peruvianus. It is a fair bit fatter than most scops, more rounded and getting even thicker at the top (like terschekii), even though it is in a relatively small pot for it's size(12").

Pity it only had one flower this year as this really didn't give much of an indication as to the crosspollination parameters. The pollination was done thoroughly and there was plenty of pollen on the stigma as soon as it opened. The pollen was one day old.

It's on a page with lots of other cacti, so if anyone wants to have a guess what else is there, please go for it. Most have not been identified. http://www.shaman-australis.com/Private/TF...ti/TFWCacti.htm

[This message has been edited by Torsten (edited 29 January 2001).]

[Murple]

Looks like a Trichocereus sp. "Juul's Giant" to me. Also, I'm not so sure the flower dropping means all that much. Sometimes pollinations just don't take.

[This message has been edited by Murple (edited 29 January 2001).]

[M S Smith]

Yeah, I'm with murple, looks like a Juul's Giant. Ask K. Trout what he thinks of it. Be sure to see his newest update at Troutsnotes.com.

[Torsten]

WOW. Shit. Now I'm stoked.

That kinda puts a different spin on our trade Michael ;-)

Snu Voogelbreinder has a very similar plant that he calls dutchess (on KT's pages under scop). I really wouldn't know what to start looking for.

What are the distinguishing features that you guys recognise to make this a Juul's giant in YOUR eyes.

[M S Smith]

I think kt, has a nice little bit on the IDing of this plant in Sacred Cacti. As for me, I just sort of have formed an eye for these things, but of course I have been wrong before.

Just one quick point though about the diff with scop. Scop is much more smooth formed while the Juul's has this much more uneven skin along with the sunken areoles. Any spines on this plant at all?

So Torsten, are you saying the terscheckii x scop is with this plant being the paternal side?

[dutchie]

Really?? a jules giant??!!! Coooool!! Torsten, Isnt that the one we.......the mother of the cross??

Amazing the varieties you find around the place.. again, very cool.

I have one of these too.

The one at photopoint is the one Kobe took at TFW. hence, name dutchess.

[Murple]

For me, the weird areoles are one of the most distinctive features of Juul's Giants. Definately pretty distinctive among the Trichocereii.

[Torsten]

Originally posted by dutchie:

Isnt that the one we.......the mother of the cross??

Well, that depends. Did you get it off the side of the road, or did you go all the way to TFW? Either way, they could both be from TFW, thus the pollen would have been from TFW. Please e-mail me with the exact location of the pollen donor and I will check it out if it is the same plant.

I have one of these too.

Any pics? A comparison would be good.

The one at photopoint is the one Kobe took at TFW. hence, name dutchess.[/b

That's what i thought, but I couldn't put the source together. So is the dutchess a scop or the same as this (Juul's)?

Wicked if that seed I got is a cross from terschekii and Juuls giant

Michael, there NO spines on this plant at all. I ran my finger over every areole today just to make sure. We just got 8 cm of new growth the last few weeks, and the new growth has no spines either.

Just got a digicam so I will take some more pics...closeups etc.

[M S Smith]

Leaning more towards Juul's for sure! I look forward to more pictures.

[dutchie]

Hiya ,No, the pollen was off of the road. Interesting though, that roadside plant seems around the same age that TFW had the scop/j.g in stock..Ive been keeping an eye on it for a few years, actually very fast growing, quite possible its origin was TFW since TFW is just down the road by a few kliks.

My plant happened to snap off the top 1/3 on the way home, and set in rot, lost the top but I have the lower section still. Just checked it and it has vertually no spines on the lower section, if not no spines then very very small. On the new growth the spines are very small but apparent.

Heres a pis of that scop/jules AKA dutchess from TFW.

So is the dutchess a scop or the same as this (Juul's)?

Not sure, maybe a trip to TFW is in order, but from the look of the pics, although not that clear, there seems very little(no) if any spines.I would say this is the same as yours.

PS: note the other scop/jules in the background. Aslo looks similar to pic of Peru 64.0762 in Trouts notes, SC 2nd edition, page 350. Please note the pic on page 296 of the same book, the bottom flowering TJG, looks very similar to that one of yours, but it too, has smaller spines on the new growth.(just visable near the tip of the plant)

[This message has been edited by dutchie (edited 31 January 2001).]

[Guest wira]

That's right, the dutchess isn't Snu's

MSS, I don't agree with the points you made about the difference between scop and TJG, as regards - "Scop is much more smooth formed while the Juul's has this much more uneven

skin along with the sunken areoles." I have been growing FR991 scopulicolus for years now and the features you mention for TJG definitely occur in scopulicolus also. However I have nearly zero hands-on contact with TJG so I can't make any judgements on that.

So no spines whatsoever? Not even really tiny embedded ones? The top pic you posted, Torsten, does look to me like scops I have seen, except the areoles that are more visible at the top look a bit odd, particularly the dark greyish felt. You may well all be right in saying that it is something other than a regular scop. Some close ups would be good Scopulicolus does frequently get larger at the top, it's been described as 'club-shaped'. I'm not sure how much wider you mean though, maybe I'm missing your point. I've also seen the knobby ridges below the areoles on scops.

Dutchie, if that is one of your plants that I saw when I visited, it seemed to me to be a scopulicolus at the time. When I get my photos developed I'll have another look

Tortsen wrote - "Are there any cereoids that have hairy flowers and are not trichs?"

I had a look through the key in 'Cactaceae' by W.T. Marshall & T.M. Bock [1941], and under the cereoids with funnelform to campanulate perianths, quite a few genera are listed under the key point "Ovary with scales which bear wool, felt or spines in their axils" [and some of which may now be called something else], but I think Trichocereus might be the only one with wooly or hairy areoles in the scales all the way up the tube, also I don't think any Trich's have spines in the flowering areoles or the areoles of the tube scales. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[dutchie]

Thinking hard.... I may not have actually purchsed that exact cacti pictured ( dutchess, athough i think IS the same as torstens picture). I recall leaving that one there, so that beautiful flower wasnt damaged. I did take one from right next to it, which was the one wira veiwed the other day. May not have been the same, but im sure they didnt have two types of scops there. Never know though.

I have noted that my small scops that have been slightly neglected have exhibited the same shrunken aerole, and noticable notching. Due to lack of water.

I assume this wouldnt happen up there Torsten? plenty of rain and Im sure its watered everyday

Again, the dutchess might be a natural scop/? hybrid exhibiting slight differences in physical characteristics.

D

[Guest wira]

"Again, the dutchess might be a natural scop/? hybrid exhibiting slight differences in physical characteristics."

Good point indeed, and also the kind of thing that should be borne in mind for many Trichocereus sp. that are floating around under various names [or lack of a name].

[Guest wira]

Btw, I definitely agree that the two plants pictured above look to be of the same variety.

[M S Smith]

Well, let's see what I can come up with here.

Early on kt and I thought that the short spined Tr. peruvianus and the Juul's were the same plant. Now we understand differently. I in fact think the short spined Tr. peru and the Peru 64.0762 (Trouts notes, SC 2nd edition, page 350) are the same plant. I don't know if kt holds this opinion.

kt, in his infinite knowledge (and I mean that sincerely) believes that there are in fact a couple, maybe three plants, known as the Juul's Giant. In no case have I heard that any of these were spineless altogether. It appears that the spineless characteristic is on the more aged material and not on the new growth.

Definitely though, the scop and Juul's are not the same plant. And I have even noticed differences in the FR991 and standard Tr. scop as seen in Terry Hewitt's The complete book of Cactus and Succulents. The FR991 has longer spines.

I hope you folks there in Aussie figure this all out. I am hoping you have stands of the Juul's!

[Guest wira]

"... scop as seen in Terry Hewitt's The complete book of Cactus and Succulents. The FR991 has longer spines."

Well, not exactly. If that's the book I think it is, I know the picture [shot of upper branch with flower?] and didn't notice any difference. FR991 is the 'standard' scop as I understand it, being the original collection number of this species. When they get bigger, the spines are generally much smaller on the upper portions, and along the body of the branch, the spine size can be quite variable or they can even be +- absent [or just receding so far into the areole that they aren't visible].