werdermannianus & terscheckii pics

[strangebrew]

Anyone want to take a guess as to why the spination difference even though they're 2 branches on the same T.werdermannianus? They're about the same age.

T.terscheckii flower. Sorry no pollen, she's a bit high.

Edited August 18, 2008 by strangebrew

[zee_werp]

Far out bro, that is one prehistoric looking flower! And cactus for that matter. The mature form of the terscheckii which you have in these pics looks very different to what I believe to be terscheckii in my own collection which is only a meagre 25cm or so tall. Such an absence of spines, so many ribs, such chunky reptilian shaping. And yes other than the stoned ramble, thank you graciously for sharing these pics, certainly some of the best I've seen of terscheckii flowers.

As for the werdermannianus, I don't have any real theories on it other than being reminded of the differences within plants of species like Echinopsis multiplex, etc. Whose pups can have quite a different appearance to the mother plant. Also, though this is no more than a mere observation, the pic on the left closely resembles my 'T. taquimbalensis', but the one on the right doesn't so much.

It does appear that the one on the right has some floewr buds developing, suggesting that it is a more mature or established section of the plant. Perhaps when the plant is putting energy into flower production, resources are diverted away from spike formation, which could result in those spindly spikes seen in the right hand pic. Who knows?

Thanks for the pics~!

[Pisgah]

Yeah, is that de-spination on mature tersheckii common. It is remarkable, since all of my young specimen are some of the thorniest in the collection.

I have seen several places, desert-tropicals included, that hold werdermannianus as a synonym for tersheckii. Granted they have similarities, but mature forms definitely seem to differ in your collection strangebrew.

[Gunter]

The terscheckii reminds me of some of the spine lacking SS02 seasonal growth for mature large plants.

[strangebrew]

Forget the T.terscheckii ID, I think it's another case of a ABG's misidentification.

This is in fact much more likely to be T.pasacana. The higher number of ribs and the lack of branches, not to mention the slower growing nature seem to point more towards this.

It doesn't seem uncommon for some of these larger growing cacti to lose their spines though, there are pictures of terscheckii floating around that show this as well.

[M S Smith]

T. terscheckii, like its close relative T. pasacana, do lose their spines with height. The pictures do appear to be T. terscheckii.

The name T. werdermannianus seems be synonymous with T. taquimbalensis var. wilkeae of Backeberg. Backeberg list them seperately in his Cactus Lexicon, but sites them both as from the region of Tupiza, Bolivia. I think they are similar enough to be considered the same plant, possibly with some slight variability. Anderson puts T. werdermannianus into T. terscheckii, but I think he is completely wrong on this account.

I think T. taquimbalensis and T. werdermannianus are synonymous even if slight location variations exist. There is another name that also appears to be a synonymous, and that is T. culpina, a plant also from the same area as the others and which having grown myself appears identical.

Anderson also is wrong in my assessment in placing T. taquimbalensis into T. tacaquirensis as T. tacaquirensis subsp. taquimbalensis due to the fact that Backeberg's T. tacaquirensis is descriptively different than his T. taquimbalensis and the two are listed as seperate species.

Following Anderson you should have T. tacaquirensis, and then T. tacaquirensis subsp. taquimbalensis, with this latter plant being the same as T. werdermannus and T. culpina. This makes sense if you consider T. tacaquirensis the first name appied to this grouping as well as want to consider T. taquimbalensis of minor difference with the original and previously described T. tacaquirensis. Anderson is wrong in my opinion in considering T. werdermannianus synonymous with T. terscheckii.

I hope I didn't cause too much confusion.

~Michael~

[faslimy]

nice pics

are you certain this is terscheckii Michael? I'm just reading 'Simon & Schuster's Guide' which has a description and photo of T pasacana, the plant and flowers are a close match. Also I thought I had seen pictures of terscheckii with much wider flowers... please correct me on this!

I have seen a mature specimen of pasacana grown by a wholesale seed vendor, it had very large and bristly black spines growing out of the lower 'trunk' part only - any sign of these?

[M S Smith]

Hey faslimy, I won't go so far to give certainly as I have both pictures of T. pasacana (E. atacamensis subsp. pasacana) and T. terscheckii, both of which show columns that get quite spineless at certain heights. As for the flowers, they are not opened all the way in the photos, but the rose color might lean it towards T. pasacana, a plant that if you dig around photos is often completely covered with thin white spines, even to the flowering tip. I honestly think there is a lot of confusion between these Argentinian, Bolivian and Chilean giants and it hasn't been something I have been particularly keen to work out as it hasn't been a grouping I've had much interest in. There do appear to be natural intermediaries though between T. terscheckii and T. pasacana that probably confuse the matter more, and growing from seed whose provenance is not wild collected from the territory can lead to the some sorts of problems we find with Peruvian Trichocereus.

Like I said, the "pictures do appear to be T. terscheckii," but that's about the depth I was willing to go. I'm much more interested in the Bolivian species that made up the majority of my comments.

~Michael~

[strangebrew]

I'm staying with T.pasacana.

Terscheckii supposedly has up to 14 ribs, this has more and to me it looks more like other T.pasacana photos.

[Gunter]

Do intermediates exist between pasacana and tersheckii?

[M S Smith]

Bob Ressler provided me his Trichocereus list once and this was included.

"TERSCHECKII- intermediate to pasacana qbda del toro DJF 299 -Poss. natural hybrid"

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Opps, I made a mistake in an above name, the plant I mentioned as T. culpina is T. culpinensis (from Culpina, Bolivia). Here's a picture of one I grew from seed.

~Michael~

[Gunter]

Might as well ask your opinion on the 'macrogonus' from SS seed that is taq/tac like.

What do you make of them?

[M S Smith]

I actually haven't grown the SS T. macrogonus, but I have grow T. macrogonus from SBE Universal Seed Bank and have a T. macrogonus from Dave R. that both are much more like T. tercheckii than anything else. I've grown both T. lecoriensis and T. bolivianus as well which are just like these "T. macrogonus." All of these have tan spines and not the dark to reddish spines common to T. werdermannianus, T. culpinensis, and T. taquimbalensis.

~Michael~

[Gunter]

A terscheckii and then the SS macrogonus plant:

[M S Smith]

That certainly does look like the T. taquimbalensis sort of plant. Interesting, but not suprising seeing the confusion around these southern Bolivian plants.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Here is the standard T. taquimbalensis in Backeberg's Die Cactaceae.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Here's a T. werdermannianus I got from Cactus Corral many years ago. Unfortunately it died on me from root. I traded a fat clipping once and I wish I could remember to whom so I could get a clipping back. This plant was 15 cm in my region and was about 20 cm when grown in California. I suppose it is identical to the above T. culpinensis, but doesn't appear to be the same as the T. taquimbalensis as the latter appears much thinner in diameter.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Here is a T. macrogonus from SBE on the right with a Mesa Garden T. taquimbalensis that isn't like the reddish spined one.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Here is another Mesa Garden T. taquimbalensis that is like the T. werdermannianus sort and having the dark spines. Confusing I know.

~Michael~

[whiterasta]

Some of my tersheckoids

I am curious to see if the grey spined tersheckii throws redish spines like the seedling next to it this spring. Also note the curved spination on the tacaquirensis. This is my favorite branch of the Trichocereus family.

WR

[strangebrew]

PISGAH - I have seen several places, desert-tropicals included, that hold werdermannianus as a synonym for tersheckii.

I've seen that too but if this is a werdermannianus the flower doesn't seem anything like the pasacana/tersheckii.

[zee_werp]

Here is a T. macrogonus from SBE on the right with a Mesa Garden T. taquimbalensis that isn't like the reddish spined one.

Michael, am I right in interpreting this as a subtle suggestion of 'mis-labelling' on the part of the growers? Cause I honestly cannot bring myself to accept that those are two different species of cactus. Where's a DNA zapper when ya need one?

[t st tantra]

someone cut the top off the large flowering plant in the first post........lots of thinish white spines on the pups,about 2 to 3 cm,some seem mis-shaped/curved.fairly slow growing.

t s t .

[Teotzlcoatl]

I recently got a Trichocereus validus, where does it fit into this whole picture?

I'll try to get a pic of it up!