mr toodly Posted July 24, 2004 This appears to be Trichocereus pachanoi. Are we in agreement? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Agamemnon Posted July 24, 2004 Yep, you've got yourself a T.Pach. there I'd say..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stonehenge Posted July 25, 2004 Looks like some sort of cereus species. It's a little hard to say for sure without a closeup but the skinny ribs and wide valleys look a a cereus. Stoney Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mescalito Posted July 25, 2004 An awesome shaman's garden I'd say Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mescalito Posted July 25, 2004 Are there 2 types in there? Two or three in the r/h bucket look like pachanois yet some of the cross sections look very cereus like?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr toodly Posted July 25, 2004 These cuttings were harvested from two thirty year old plants that have been subject to serious neglect. Some spikes were falling over from lack of water. It's all the same plant--but some spikes are more dessicated than others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr toodly Posted July 25, 2004 Here are some high resolution images that I hope satisfy your questions. http://virgula.port5.com/trich/ Note: You definitely do not want to open these in your web browser. Save to disk. I was initially perturbed by the great rib variations, but I think the sunken valleys are due to neglect. Some cuttings aren't firm to the touch. I found that the most recent growth resembled T. pachanoi, while the older portions of the plant were marked by deeper valleys and thinner ribs. Peculiar. [ 25. July 2004, 08:44: Message edited by: r. Jackson ] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M S Smith Posted July 25, 2004 r.J., these are all no doubt T. pachanoi in my opinion. The sunken in ribs are common with under watered plants. No Cereus there. ~Michael~ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest electro Posted July 25, 2004 are they not t.scop ? (short spined pach ...) i always thought t.pach had bigger spines ... *whrug* could be very wrong tho .. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M S Smith Posted July 26, 2004 There seems to be a bit of variation in spine length. The old standard in cultivation, the Backeberg clone, stills dominates (at least here in the US), but with ethnobotanical interests rising over the last couple decades (particularly the 90s), there have been a few other clones around. I see two rather distinct clones, the one in these photos is not, in my estimation, the Backeberg clone, but rather a clone that often will put out a longer central spine on old growth, has less raised tubercles, and bears somewhat regular, but very faint, V-notches over the areoles. This clone has a much "smoother" appearence than the Backeberg clone. Right off the bat T. pachanoi origins are believed to have been in southern Ecuador / Northern Peru, while T. scopulicola comes southern Bolivia. There are a couple forms of T. scopulicola, the standard one which has extremely minute and fine spines, and then the T. scopulicola known as "Lance" by Shaman Australis which has spines generally longer than most T. pachanoi. T. scopulicola according to Ritter is related to T. bridgesii, another Bolivian species, and this is quite obvious to me when I observe the plants myself. ~Michael~ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr toodly Posted July 26, 2004 Thank you all for your time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Piers Gibbon Posted August 18, 2004 there's some pictures of my pach on this thread..similarly tiny spines to yours http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/cgi-bin...0499;p=1#000025 and very nice he is too..I call him Pedrito Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
