KK 242 Cuzcoensis

[Evil Genius]

Hi,

i still have some problems with the KK 242. I know that the KK242 has a swollen spine base, just like the way you can see on some pics i encluded. The KK242 seems to be very frequent. The Problem begins when looking at new groth. The spines on new groth on most of my Cuzcoensis are yellowish with some slight blackish tips. Old Growth spines are white. Besides the position of the spines are remarkable and unique. Most of my KK242 have very distinct v-marks too.

I suppose this is a cuz:

I have another one i actually thought to be a KK 242 too but it only matches the criterias for the KK242 in some positions. It seems that it isn´t a KK242 at all. The New growth of the spines looks more peruvianoid than cuzcoenoid. The color of the spines on new growth is more red. Old Growth looks kind of similar, as well as the position and shape of the spines. My Main Problem is that the shape of the spines on old growth looks not very peruvianoid to me because there are so many r.spines.

I try to ID my Cacti correct but this one is hardy to me because it looks so completely different to all my others and it confuses me everytime.The shape of the column is almost round. MAybe someone can help me out if this actually is KK242 at all.

Thanks

[ 17. August 2005, 22:00: Message edited by: Evil Genius ]

[strangebrew]

Top one KK242.

The other is definately macrovoid or whatever it is we're calling them.

[ 18. August 2005, 04:24: Message edited by: strangebrew ]

[AndyAmine.]

Hmm, I can never see the pictures you post Evil Genius, can you do a favour for people like me (and there are a few of us) and also place a link for the picture as well.

Out of curiosity what method are you using to post them?

[Benzito]

I can see them no problem. It must be something to do with your browser settings Andy? But, I don't know, really.

[Evil Genius]

Thank you for your thoughts!Andy, I don´t know why the pics aren´t visible to you but it´s possible to include a direct link to the pics in my next posts!If there is any value to the community i could also load them to the shaman australis photo gallery in the future. EG

[trucha]

I'd suggest that swollen spine bases have no meaning either for differentiation or for recognition of species.

At least a handful of peruvianus forms can show these as can at least a handful of other trich species including tarmaensis, werdermannianus and others. Macrogonus also can show these if growing in full sun.

Cuzcoensis only seems to show them on new spines; at least on the wild collected material growing at UC Berkeley.

I think MSS's equating of the two is at least is premature. Flowers and fruit of some sort of KK242 needs to be compared before making such a conclusion as these are the only features of cuzcoensis that one can not find on at least some peruvianus forms.

I will pull together some photos to illustrate all of this ASAP

The plant shown resembles:

Trichocereus sp. SS03

Trichocereus knuthianus

Trichocereus pachanoiXperuvianus sensu GF

I wish I had enough time in life right now to participate more in these discussions.

[ 05. September 2005, 19:26: Message edited by: trout ]

[strangebrew]

So do flower descriptions for both exist? Or even a decent photo of a cuzcoensis flower would help.

I know Flip's KK242 has flowered and seemed to display fairly sparse grey floral hairs from memory.

[ 06. September 2005, 11:03: Message edited by: strangebrew ]

[Evil Genius]

I don´t know about Flower Pics but some Translations of original Descriptions are soon going to be posted. I´ll translate the Flower Description of the Trichocereus Cuzcoensis from Ritter this week.

[ 07. September 2005, 20:27: Message edited by: Evil Genius ]

[Evil Genius]

Flower Description Trichocereus Cuzcoensis

Friedrich Ritter, Kakteen in Südamerika Bd. 4 S.1327

According to Britton & Rose, the size of the Flower is only about 12-14 cm. One Flower i measured originated from below Cuzco near chile had a lenght from 20 cm though. The Flowers of the plants originating from Chalhuanca (Depart Apurimac) had a similar lenght or were just a little bit shorter. The plants from this location resemble plants with less spines from the Typusort.(What´s that in English?Place of the Typus?)

Remarkable Points on one Flower originating from Chalhuanca Not far away from the apex(?english),direct and pointed angular upwards,with widely outwards bended outer cotyledon(?).

Nectar chamber: only about 13 mm in lenght.

Receptaculum/tube: covered with brown wool with a lenght of 8 cm.

Filament 6-7 cm long, the ones which cover the edge are about 3,5 cm long.

style(pen?): 14,3 cm long, 16 stigmatic branches(Is this correct? I think so. German Original is Narbenäste)which are about 25 mm in lenght.

Inner cotyledon:about 7 - 8,5 cm in lenght, 2,7 to 3,3 mm wide, Seeds approximately like the one from the Typusort/Typuslocation? Cuzco, very similar to the seed of Tr. Pachanoi, but with a straightforward pointed Hilum(English word?).

Trout and everybody else,please have a look on the Translation. Corrections are very very welcome. My botanical English is a little bit rusty.BestRegs EG

[ 07. September 2005, 21:20: Message edited by: Evil Genius ]

[Flip]

my KK242 flower as mentioned above

I've got some close up shots of the same plant HERE

here's the pups from it's cut base (yes it's a shame)

Brothers and sisters from the same batch of seed

Nightshot

I hope that this helps out.

[Evil Genius]

A Very nice Pic! Please give the man a cigar!

[strangebrew]

Nice work EG!

I'm looking forward to seeing the other descriptions, especially for peruvianus and macrogonus. Maybe I'll get a better handle on what my weird clone really is.

 

quote:

---

Remarkable Points on one Flower originating from Chalhuanca Not far away from the apex(?english),direct and pointed angular upwards,with widely outwards bended outer cotyledon(?).

---

The word "angular" may read better if it was 'diagonally' or 'angularly', "bended" - 'bending' maybe?

Would I be correct in thinking that "apex" is referring to the 'tip' of the plant?

[trucha]

Nice work! Thanks!

Typesort or Type means the original population or individuals used for creatng the original description)

How about these edits?:

"Remarkable points on one flower originating from Chalhuanca.

Borne not far away from the apex, straight and pointed upwardly at an angle, with outer sepals bending widely outwards.

Nectar chamber: only about 13 mm in length.

Floral tube is covered with brown wool with a length of 8 cm.

Filaments [of stamens] 6-7 cm long, the ones which cover the edge are about 3.5 cm long.

Style: 14.3 cm long, 16 stigma lobes which are about 25 mm in length.

Inner petals: about 7 - 8.5 cm in length, 2.7 to 3.3 mm wide, Seeds approximately like the one from the Typesort at Cuzco, very similar to the seed of Tr. Pachanoi, but with a straightforward pointed Hilium."

An important point to be aware of is that this is a description of one variant flower that was considered remarkable from a normal cuzcoensis flower, if I am reading Ritter right.

Numbers and length on stigma lobes, for instance, will most often be a range rather than a set number (assuming more than one or two flowers are looked at of course)

Here is Britton & Rose's description of the flowers (from the original description)

Note that most of this would fit any of the pachanoid to peruvianoids. I'll come back to this subject and floristic differences when I post some photos to illustrate.

"[...]flowers 12 to 14 cm long, doubtless nocturnal but, sometimes at least, remaining open during the morning, fragrant; flower-tube green, 5-6 cm long; inner perianth-segments [i.e. the petals] oblong, white, 4 to 5 cm long; filaments weak, declining on lower side of throat; scales on the ovary and flower-tube small, bearing a few long hairs in their axils[...]"

The two most recognizable differences from peruvianus that I can see is more pale green in the flower tube (that of cuzcoensis usually has more yellow green similar to pallarensis in color but less so on extent)

Petals have a slightly 'blockier' shape than peruvianus. I'm not quite sure what word to use?

Degree of hair can be highly variable even in one adult.

Fruit is distinct also. Photos to come.

AND nice photo of KK242!

Two things

First is a question as to whether we could include that photo in the Trich project at the Trout's Notes website? (That is when I get time to get back to photo uploading there)

One of the intentions is to eventually have flower photos for every species and variety in a comprehensive trichocereus taxonomic (but not analytical) data base available to the public.

The second is the comment that this is a peruvianus flower and clearly NOT a cuzcoensis flower.

Thanks for sharing. I've been wanting to see any KK242 flower for a long time.

[ 10. September 2005, 02:39: Message edited by: trout ]

[Flip]

Thanks KT

I waited quite a long time for this to flower indeed. The seed was sourced from OTJ waaaay back when...

it's nice to have the opinion of it being a T. Peru and not a T. Cuzo

I'll PM you about the flower usage.... Yes, lets keep moving things forward.

[trucha]

I've been looking through peruvianus pictures to format and upload and have been struck by just how inconsistent the color of the outer floral parts is. Maybe yet another morphologcal feature of little taxnomic significance?

I hope to have more illustrative images uploaded within no more than a couple of days.

Also, on the KK242 flower, while its surely a peruvianus flower, there is not any certainty that it does not have pachanoi at some point within its genes. I say that more on the cool appearance of the column than the flower itself.

[ 10. September 2005, 02:43: Message edited by: trout ]

[strangebrew]

Thanks for that flower ID Trout, I've always wanted to see what a peruvianus flower looked like. It will be great to see your other flower pictures too. I gather from your comment that hybrids display signs of hybridisation in their flower's as well?

Well I guess that puts a big hole in the whole kk242/cuzco theory.

Now I'm just about positive this really is macrogonus. These also show what huge morphological differences can occur in the same plant.

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...ormal_plant.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...rmal_plant1.jpg

http://www.shaman-australis.com.au/gallery...pics/flower.jpg

[Flip]

just a thought,

aside from hybred genetics...

I would also try to take into account the fact that not all photo's are alike.

certainly there's going to be a huge difference in the quality and accuracy

with different cameras, photographers, film and light options.

if you're thinking about a subtile color difference it may be due in part to the above factors.

I myself can't see many differences in the flowers for the kk242 and these Juuls Giants

[Evil Genius]

Hi everyone,

i´m glad to see the dynamic that this project developes. Theres lots of work but i´m sure it´s going to be funny though.

Trout,

thanks for your work on the Translation. I am going to post more comments concerning the translation on this weekend when i have more spare time.

EG

[trucha]

Comments on factors affecting photo quality are great.

I would add that yet another underappreciated element is that even on one single plant there can be significant variation in size and appearance of flowers, AND such things as color and size of stem, felting on areoles, size of areoles, expression of thickened spine bases, color, shape, size, density and number of spines, and also marks or indentations above or below the areoles.

Caution is suggested even if viewing the plants in real life.

Anything subtle is likely to be devoid of value in taxonomic study unless perhaps when totally consistent and unique to that particular purported species.

Further, comparison of photos of just one flower of one species to just one flower of another species is likely to cause conclusions of observations that later turn out to be premature.

Carlos Ostolaza told me that to write a description one needs to dissect 50-100 flowers just to know that the features being described as characteristic are really characteristic of the species being described.

[Gimli]

I was sold this as Trichocereus Cuzcoensis KK242... Would this be correct?

This pot also has some Cuzco in it.

[Evil Genius]

Well, actually this looks more like a KK2148 Trichocereus Tarmaensis, but they are totally related to KK242 and this type would usually be called KK242. They are actually Cuzcoensis too so it doesn´t really matter but technically, I would call that a KK242 relative.

[Gimli]

Well, actually this looks more like a KK2148 Trichocereus Tarmaensis, but they are totally related to KK242 and this type would usually be called KK242. They are actually Cuzcoensis too so it doesn´t really matter but technically, I would call that a KK242 relative.

Cuzco is technically a Peruvianus, yes?

I am still new to cacti specimens so please go easy lol

[2XB]

Well, actually this looks more like a KK2148 Trichocereus Tarmaensis, but they are totally related to KK242 and this type would usually be called KK242. They are actually Cuzcoensis too so it doesn´t really matter but technically, I would call that a KK242 relative.

I have a couple plants with that single prominent long spine in near perfect vertical alignment, one being kk2150 from Sab. How far would the collection sites of 2148 and 2150 be from one another?

[Evil Genius]

Well, the Kk2150 is from Ayabaca and KK2148 from Tarma. They are a good distance away but around that area, this is one of the dominant types.