Xenomorph Posted May 9, 2004 hi there everyone. was wondering if you could help me with identifying some plants that I have. Ths first one is meant to be a T.bridgesii (a number of spiens are missing)..have a look...> Ok this next one I suspect is a t.pachanoi and looking for confirmation.. Finally this cutting I am positive is a t.pachanoi... I am relatively new to cacti and any help from the experts in telling me what these 3 are would be greatly appreciated.(ma smith?? I am told you are a cacti master:)) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strangebrew Posted May 10, 2004 That fourth photo is giving me Trichocereus scopulicola vibes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xenomorph Posted May 10, 2004 hmmm agreed I tend to think it is not a pachanoi after further inspection...In comparing it to the pachanoi cutting (5th photo) there are nearly twice as many aeroles on the plant (4th photo)...including the 5 ribs (which isnt common ive read?) hmm that is a shame if it isnt a pedro.... anyone else have any thoughts they would like to share? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M S Smith Posted May 10, 2004 The first three photos do appear to be of a T. bridgesii type, but not the standard one. It appears more like the SS02 in that it has finer spines than the thick heavy ones of the regular T. bridgesii clone in regular cultivation. Notice that it appears to bear the three radial spine common to T. bridgesii while lacking a clear central spine. The forth photo does have a T. scopulicola vibe, but its tip isn't quite like T. scopulicola. A better picture might clear things up for me. Five ribs though isn't particulary uncommon for T. pachanoi. Run your fingernail at 90 degrees down the skin and do the same to a confirmed T. pachanoi. T. scopulicola skin is rougher than the very waxy feel of T. pachanoi skin. That should easily clear up the matter. T. scopulicola skin is also not as refective of light as T. pachanoi due to the rougher skin texture. ~Michael~ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Absinthe Posted May 10, 2004 Also, with the 4th photo, the pup down the bottom has SIX ribs, which is very common for pachanoi, and not as common for scops, from my point of view anyway. I also agree on the light reflectiveness - scops are more dull than the one in that picture. Jon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xenomorph Posted May 10, 2004 hey there michael cheers for the prompt reply and taking time to have a look.. What is a SS02? Is this bridgesoid a hybrid of two other plants? Regarding the fourth photo... I have ran my fingernail along this one, and also a pedro.. I noticed no real difference. Would there be a major difference between the feel of the surfaces that even a newbie could spot? anyway i have taken more photos but i dont think these are necesarily better, due to my camera or my knowledge of how to use the camera are not very good, resulting in not very clear shots... anyway take a look.. cheers http://members.optusnet.com.au/nocturnal2/...acti/thing1.jpg http://members.optusnet.com.au/nocturnal2/...acti/thing6.jpg http://members.optusnet.com.au/nocturnal2/...acti/thing4.jpg http://members.optusnet.com.au/nocturnal2/...acti/thing2.jpg http://members.optusnet.com.au/nocturnal2/...acti/thing3.jpg http://members.optusnet.com.au/nocturnal2/...acti/thing5.jpg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strangebrew Posted May 10, 2004 Xenomorph, if you can get your hands on the camera manual, look under Macro in the index. Don't feel down if it's not a pach., scop's may be just as good. [ 10. May 2004, 15:42: Message edited by: strangebrew ] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xenomorph Posted May 10, 2004 thanks for the input cacti master. strangebrew: am looking for manual now do all cameras support this macro option? can scops be just as good? I was under the impression there was only traces if any of various goodies in scops. anyway that certainly makes me feel better! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strangebrew Posted May 10, 2004 No, not all cameras have macro. If it doesn't maybe have a look under "close-up". The jury still seems to be out on scops. to the best of my knowledge, hey, I said "may". Some peeps haven't noticed any difference apparently. [ 10. May 2004, 21:03: Message edited by: strangebrew ] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
psylogic Posted May 20, 2004 here is a some images of a cacti that i think is a T. scopulicola (not sure though). Before Cutting After Cutting pup Here is another that I have not sure what it is either. Unknown Pup Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strangebrew Posted May 20, 2004 I think you're right with the first one. You can really see on that first photo how quickly the skin becomes dull. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
psylogic Posted May 20, 2004 Here is another pic of the unknown cacti all of these have come from the one in the black pot. unknown cacti Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
planthelper Posted May 20, 2004 the pic called before cutting shows two differnt cacti in one pot, so i think... in the foreground scopulicolus and in the back a pachanoi. pic pup and unknown pup are scops aswell, so i think... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xenomorph Posted May 20, 2004 To me, tricbefore none of them look like pachanoi. they also look different to my scop looking thing which has pics further up. Although I do believe yours are scops in that pic. However, in the tricafter pic, the one on the left looks like a pach. but its obviously still the same one that was in tricbefore. The one on the right is a scop and the pup is a scop and the unknown is a scop. Doesnt really help much but..anyway. hehe anyone got any insights on my further pics? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
psylogic Posted May 20, 2004 I'll explain the "Before Cutting" and "Affer Cutting" images. They are the same cacti before and after i took a cutting (the limb furthest from the camera in "Before Cutting". This is 1 cacti I am very sure of that it's around 5 years old and has never been out of the pot. You are right about how the limb on the left look more like a pachanoi but it's growing from the main trunk as above an old cuting as the fater limbs have sprung from below the cutting. I think the first 2 images is bridgesii the next 2 look like a scop or T. cordobensis "Lance" as it looks quite differnent from my pachanio . Mine may be a T. cordobensis "Lance" as well? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xenomorph Posted May 21, 2004 Interesting point, this T.(lance) never entered my mind until viewing that url you posted. Pic 3 of mine, with the one in the pot I believe is the same type as your 'pachanoi'. Lets hope for both our sakes that there are pachanoi. The person I bought it from told me that i was a pach, but appeared different to a definite pach I had. Its a dilly of a pickle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smogs Posted May 21, 2004 to tell between a san pedro and a Scop run your fingernail at 90% down the skin... the scop will be rough and the san pedro waxy and smooth M S Smith has said that a million times and thought i would save him saying it again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
