Seedgrown KK427 Tarma pics

[BlackDragon]

^_^ Hi all,

Just posting some pics of seedgrown t.peruvianus KK427 Tarma.

Hope you enjoy

[Rev]

Nice

if you decide you have too many of the one sort let me know and ill swap you for another

[Dirty Old Man]

Nice. How old is it and how big is it now?

All these peruvianoid's are confusing the hell out of me.

To me it looks too similar to kk242.

Maybe one day I will get the hang of it.

[Evil Genius]

I know these clones but i didn´t know too it is a KK427. I bought one that was labeled with a trichocereus fantasy name . They are very yellowish and have a pale green; besides the spination is very beautiful. Somehow they look like some labeled Trichocereus Cuzcoenensis but they are different. I like this clone and i´d love to see more pics in the future. Is KK427 Tarma a known Cuz-variant? BestRegs EG

[M S Smith]

I am not suprised at all, in fact I have long suspected that when the T. peruvianus "KK427" matured they would look just like the T.p. "KK242," T.p. "KK338," T.p. "Blue Form," T.p. "Cuzcoensis," and T.p. "Ancash."

All of these look to be the same plant, and one which I suspect Knize added different names to just to sell plants after he became aware of the US interest in T. peruvianus. I suspect this plant isn't even T. peruvianus, nor from Matucana, Peru, and is rather T. cuzcoensis. I've started labeling these sorts of plants "T. peruvianus (T. cuzcoensis?)", followed by whatever "form" name or number Knize might have attached.

So Knize took a plant that wasn't even T. peruvianus, in my humble opinion, and appied that name, as well as many different "forms" and "variations" of it, without any justification besides selling plants to bring in some money. I don't think anything has changed either, as any packages he sends north are a hodge-podge of clippings with poor records of provenance.

I have some seedlings from Mesa Garden seed that are said to have been collected at Tarma, Peru. I suspect that it will not at all turn out like these others, but will be more like the actual "T. peruvianus (T. macrogonus?)" that comes from areas around Matucana.

~Michael~

[Gunter]

It seems that there is more than one type of cuzcoensis, some of the botanical garden materials identified as such do not look like the 242 types.

The photographs in this thread also cause me to suspect that the 427 material is related to the 242, but could be distinct in some ways as well.

[Pisgah]

I have some seedlings from Mesa Garden seed that are said to have been collected at Tarma, Peru. I suspect that it will not at all turn out like these others, but will be more like the actual "T. peruvianus (T. macrogonus?)" that comes from areas around Matucana.

~Michael~

Any pics?

[M S Smith]

It seems that there is more than one type of cuzcoensis, some of the botanical garden materials identified as such do not look like the 242 types.

The photographs in this thread also cause me to suspect that the 427 material is related to the 242, but could be distinct in some ways as well.

I'm not sure that there are "more than one type of cuzcoensis" as much as I think there are plants in some botanical gardens that are improperly labeled.

Sorry Pisgah, the Mesa Garden T. peruvianus from Tarma were just sown a month or so ago. Something to look forward to for sure though.

~Michael~

[Gunter]

Considering you seem to be saying that the KK242, which lacks any specific collection data, is T cuzcoensis, and that material that looks nothing like KK242, that is identified as T cuzcoensis and has collection data, is not T cuzcoensis. I am inclined to ask what species you think the these plants could be?

I noticed to mention that an actual T peruvianus exists, does that mean you only think that there is a single authentic T peruvianus? What are the other plants that are identified as T peruvianus but inconsitant with the macrogonus types you identify as an authentic peruvianus?

Are there several more species of Trichocereus out there, waiting to be named? Is it all grex?

Do some species have distinct populations with a distinct range of traits?

I can't help but think the picture you are painting is too simple, or at least it creates more questions (for me) than it answers.

Mike, what is your type specimen for T cuzcoensis?

[Rev]

To me thes dont look like KK242

they resemble them inthe same way werdermannianus resembles terscheckii

and in the same way a clumper might give them synonymity - but i dont believe it

at least to the degree i feel its a different enough population to warrant collection

all my KK242 are remarkably homogenous on form and the patter n emerges as they reach a foot or so

by 1m they are well defined

these look different. subtle differences that will amplify with time

its like looking at a baby and wondering what will they look like when they are older.

you have to tune in and filter out the visual noise thats baby phase and look at the traits that are unique and likely to be amplified

The spination here shows promise for a different looking cactus as does the colour

but as for being peruvianus ???? who knows, not even Knize it seems and ill leave that to you guys to articulate. i do find it of more interest concerned now with the KK242'oid cluster or related forms purely from an evolutionary continuum collectors viewpoint

[M S Smith]

Most of what I see is a degree of variability in a single species, T. cuzcoensis, with the BBG plant (http://trout.yage.net/sc/cuzcoensis_BBG/cuzBBindex.htm) being representative of the species, that is caused by genetic diversity and by growing conditions and environment. I have discussed this issue at length at The Nook as well and wish I could direct you there to look over my arguments again. I think the KK242, and the other “T. peruvianus” forms mentioned earlier, are the same as the BBG T. cuzcoensis. In The Nook thread I also show a nice photo of a T. cuzcoensis outside Cuzco, that though quite a bit larger in diameter than most cultivated KK242 or the T. cuzcoensis at the BBG, bears the same sort of rib and spine formation.

Needless to say, well maybe not, there is certainly a lot of “grex,” something I have spoken about often due to the implications of mans use and transplanting of cacti, particularly in the corridor between southern Ecuador and central Peru. There certainly are lots of plants that go by the name T. peruvianus, and this is likely ok since I think that this is the main species of ethnobotanical import and therefore the one which has been the most inter-breed to produce the greatest variability (this as opposed to the development towards standardized growth patters by isolation – which I hold T. cuzcoensis developed in more so, possibly due to its low alkaloid yield as has been told). There is no “authentic T. peruvianus” in my estimation, but rather a variable plant that goes from the short spined form, to the “T. macrogonus” forms, to the Icaros long spined thick columned T. peruvianus from Matucana. I think all these are interrelated. The T. peruvianus KK242 (T. cuzcoensis?) and the T. cuzcoensis bear much less diversity in my opinion, so little that slight variables in spine growth are insignificant (skin color, i.e. yellowing, in this “grouping” being due to environment, nutrients, sunlight, etc., and not due to genes).

Maybe I do simplify the matter, but I offer to the world my views. If you disagree then feel free to counter them and make your own propositions. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t run around saying I am right and leave open space for smart folks like you to answer the “?” I carefully place in my designation for a reason. Maybe my influence is overrated, but that isn't my problem, but rather those who listen to me. I can at least say I am honest in what I write and I intend only to say what I think, not get other to follow me because I like a following...I do not.

Maybe I will come back latter and post pictures of the T. peruvianus KK242, KK338, Blue Form, Ancash, and var. cuzcoensis to show just how alike these plants are to the 427 pictures above.

~Michael~

[kakti]

To me these look very distinct from the traditional kk242 variety. Im not going to venture into the Cuzco vs Peruvian vs independant species discussion though..Ill leave that to the usual suspects

Edited to say: Michael - Please post pictures of all those variants when you have the time

Edited March 30, 2006 by kakti

[M S Smith]

Here's all but the KK338. I'm not at home but dug these up elsewhere. Growth may appear variable, particularly with the Blue Form, but this is only the most stately of the clipping of it I have, and it usually doesn't look this good.

Order: Ancash, Blue Form, var. cuzcoensis, and KK242.

~Michael~

Edited March 30, 2006 by M S Smith

[Gunter]

Don't mind me Mike. I only want to challenge some of your ideas.

I'll admit I have been a little annoyed ever since I sent some SS02 X ? to you in a trade last year and you never sent your end after I commented on your stance on the Hiroshima bombing and the ethics or war. That resulted in the only bad trade review you ever had at the Nook, maybe I should feel special. But other than that one issue, I have no problem with you.

Of course I have read all you have ever said on cacti at the Nook, and I am familiar with your posts on T cuzcoensis. A great deal of it was in discussion with others including myself, but I'll admit that I like to hear many viewpoints and yours is just one well informed oninion.

There is no “authentic T. peruvianus” in my estimation, but rather a variable plant that goes from the short spined form, to the “T. macrogonus” forms, to the Icaros long spined thick columned T. peruvianus from Matucana. I think all these are interrelated.

I agree with the idea that there is no "authentic" T. peruvianus, but that instead several forms exist. How we draw the line between a long spine pachanoi and a short spine peruvianus I have no idea and I see this cuzcoensis thing as relating to that.

I just don't understand some of the reasoning behind your pronouncements, please forgive me, much of it just seems to go over my head.

[M S Smith]

Jeez Archaea, maybe you should have just taken the time to remind me of the trade I had forgotten. I was thinking that I did send you something in return, or as a payment on trade, and that I simply didn't follow through on sending you items in a further trade that never occurred on my side or yours. You know, is all it takes is a reminder, not public comments designed to somehow make me look bad. I would think that before someone goes and makes a "bad trade review" they would at least make at least one attempt to address it with the person the trade was supposed to be with. Ugh. What the fuck.

And I seriously doubt much of what I say is over your head. That you disagree is find enough with me, on cactus, or war.

If you think I owe you something still, please let me know and I will take care of it. I just wish you could have done this privately with me before making what is apparently a second "bad trade review" in this forum. Thanks for making me look bad without talking to me about your problem first.

~Michael~

Edited March 30, 2006 by M S Smith

[M S Smith]

Here's the T. peruvianus KK338.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Here's another KK242.

~Michael~

[M S Smith]

Here's the Blue Form a little more mature and with the development of longer spines of which it is capable of, and appears to be due to higher light levels.

~Michael~

[faslimy]

we're only human, i do hope you two continue your cacti debates

[BlackDragon]

Hiya. Well as for the debates, Im well over it all. I just love my cacti, and lable them accodring to thier seedlot/sender.

Im sure those of us that actually have a number of(not just a few but more than a dozen or so) these peruvianus/macro/cuzco can tell that there is destinct differences between them that doesnt come across on photos. I try my best...

Alot of hearsay is repeated, and names thrown nilly willy. I learnt from an old school cacti grower 70+ years old. I aquired alot of my mature collections from him, way before the name calling and tagging was even considered in the ethno communtiy. Collections were from 50+ year old specimins. Named 50+ years ago.Ill stick with that for now.

I have Peruvianus that look likt text book perus's, macros that look like text book macros and freaks inbetween every thing else.Trying to lump the in single family names seem far to trivial for the ease of these gems forming hybrids. Keep the name you got with the plants and let age decide These are quite different from the kk242 seed I have grown.

[Gunter]

How can I not look worse than you for having mentioned the issue? My other trade experiences with you were awesome.

Also, I was thinking about this tonight as I was walking, and your right, I should have said something in private, I made the mistake of assuming you remembered. I do make mistakes and am a silly creature sometimes.

One of my thoughts tonight was that your very saying that you don't want a following may imply you are worth following, so to speak. Some of the best teachers don't desire any students, and are themselves students as well.

I have great respect for your knowledge of the cacti, despite my skepticism regarding their taxonomic situation. Of all the conversations and exchanges I have had online, many of my favorites were with you and quite positive. I hope you will forgive me my foolish and unwarranted post about the trade. I do think it is significant it is the closest thing to a bad review you have ever had concerning cacti, and it seems to be an honest mistake and lack of communication. I think in the end it illuminates you more positively than negatively, but I'll understand if you are annoyed with me.

As for the cuzcoensis thing, I agree with most of what you say, of the rest I am merely uncertain. Honestly some things do fly over my head, you are thoroughly familiar with many aspects of these cacti that I am not familiar with. I hope to use your diligence as an example.

As for the cacti in this thread, they look very close to the KK242 look, but something says they are not quite the same to me. Still I could imagine they are both T cuzcoensis or closely related. I am very interested in possible intermediates between the cuzcoensis and the peruvianoid/macrogonus types.

[BlackDragon]

My point was to show some new pics, Can we not repeat this peruvian/cusco/macro thing everytime?

The posted pic is labled from seed.Whatever it may be its different and i wanted to share it with you all, not start offspun argument/discussion. Lets just look, smile and comment, not justify the whole speil again. I love it anyways...

Oh yeah, these were sow in 2000

Edited March 30, 2006 by BlackDragon

[kakti]

Blackdragon can you please post some pictures of your textbook Peruvians and Macrogonus's? The more pictures the merrier

[Gunter]

Sorry Black dragon(and Mr.Smith).

I dig the photographs, honest.

I find them stimulating, I wish I knew more about them.

[Rev]

My point was to show some new pics, Can we not repeat this peruvian/cusco/macro thing everytime?

The posted pic is labled from seed.Whatever it may be its different and i wanted to share it with you all, not start offspun argument/discussion. Lets just look, smile and comment, not justify the whole speil again. I love it anyways...

Oh yeah, these were sow in 2000

if we weigh up the cost of going over the whole thing again against not talking about it while we have people around who take it seriously then i think we must go in favour of talking often and muchly

one day we WILL get to the bottom of this and we will have names that reflect reality but only if the discourse continues

I too see something different. but i cant articulate it well. Maybe in 10 years time when i have a good collection of 4 and 5 metre tall specimens adjacent to one another and it becomes more clear

till then i value all this discourse as preparative for my own conclusions. Big Thankyous to all here and others like Trout for highlighting and defining the issues so we can think ctitically about them too