Monstrose Pachanoi

[magical9]

So i posted these pictures before but ive been a bit confused as to their ID since then. Someone mentioned that they were KK339's... but they look like standard T. Pachanoi monstrose. So im confused as to why anyone considers them KK's ... any insights?

[M S Smith]

Yeah, T. pachanoi, but quite identical to the original "monstrose short spined T. peruvianus," a name that solely had its origins in me with the arrival of both this monstrose form and a regular columnar form from Cactus Corral in the early 90s with the simple label "T. peruvianus." I attached "short spined" to differentiate it from the regular T. peruvianus plant circulating at that time as "T. peruvianus KK242," but which I latter argued successfully as being T. cuzcoensis. Karol Knize's numbering system, particularly in relation to Trichocereus, is questionable at best.

~Michael~

[magical9]

ah ok. ive got nearly 30 of these plants now heh. ;)

[zelly]

Yeah, T. pachanoi, but quite identical to the original "monstrose short spined T. peruvianus," a name that solely had its origins in me with the arrival of both this monstrose form and a regular columnar form from Cactus Corral in the early 90s with the simple label "T. peruvianus." I attached "short spined" to differentiate it from the regular T. peruvianus plant circulating at that time as "T. peruvianus KK242," but which I latter argued successfully as being T. cuzcoensis

first you say its a T pachanoi, then in the same sentence you say its identical to a form you capriciously labeled as 'short spined' T peruvianus 20+ years ago !! At least you got the trichocereus part right !!

How utterly astounding that you can positively identify a plant as being 'identical' to one you saw 2 decades earlier

......actually I think you're full of shit Michael.

[M S Smith]

zelly, may I suggest you pay more attention to my very intentional use of quotes. You really should just take a moment to breathe before posting, or maybe make an inquiry of what I mean if you don't understand. So take a few minutes and look over what I said again, and then do it once more, and if you're still dumbfounded maybe I can take another stab at clarification to be helpful.

~Michael~

[zelly]

magical9 ------> "any insights"?

mssmith--------> "yeah, T pachanoi"

mssmith--------> "but quite identical to the original "monstrose short spined T. peruvianus,"

so wtf is it mssmith?

a pachanoi or a name you made up, the illustrious short spined T. peruvianus???

Please, by all means, clarify.

yep, its a pachanoi, in fact its quite identical to a short spined peruvianus, yep by golly.

yep, i was having one hell of a hard time ciphering whether the plant had long spines or short spines, so I just made up a new name & called it a "short spined T. peruvianus" yep by golly.

like i said Michael, I think you're full of shit.

[M S Smith]

zelly, please pay close attention to the quotes. This monstrose form in question came to me from Cactus Corral labeled "T. peruvianus." I called it a "short spined T. peruvianus," keeping the species name it came with. I added the "short spined" moniker since it was called T. peruvianus and had very short spines. It is certainly T. pachanoi, but at the time T. pachanoi was almost universally represented by the PC plant and the T. peruvianus was quite commonly what today is regarded as T. cuzcoensis. So "short spined" was added since what was regarded at the time as T. peruvianus, but really T. cuzcoensis, had long spines. I'm fully aware, and have been for many years, that the plant we're discussing is T. pachanoi and always use quotes around the name "short spined T. peruvianus" when mentioning the plant for what should be obvious reasons.

Here's a photo Jim of Cactus Corral passed along with the standard and monstrose forms of the "T. peruvianus." It's since shown a propensity to form crest and bifurcate.

Easy enough if you ask me.

~Michael~

Edited May 23, 2014 by M S Smith

[Halcyon Daze]

LOL.

U guyz...

[hostilis]

Gee, yep, by golly! Lol.

Why all the fighting over taxonomy? Lol. I'd say those are just nice plants.

[M S Smith]

Considering zelly said I was full of shit twice I think I proved rather reserved and actually sort of helpful. Oh well.

~Michael~

[magical9]

not sure i understand the angst... what is it with cactus collectors being so pissy and quick to talk shit?

MS Smith, i was still kinda confused when you first responded to me based kinda along the lines of what zelly referenced but your latest explanations make sense. Thanks for that.

Zelly, i love your seed and the info you provide but im dumbfounded at the attitude... i have all the respect for you though.

[hostilis]

I don't understand the attitude from zelly either is what I meant basically. No need to be so rude over this. Some people are just extra passionate I guess. Lol.

[M S Smith]

magical9, if you hadn't seen it yet check out my peice, "On T. pachanoi, T. peruvianus, and T. macrogonus" at the following link. I'd been talking about this particular item for quite a few years, but I do still enjoy the opportunity to help others...even zelly who I trust gained some insight into my earlier words from my last post.

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17418

~Michael~

Edited May 29, 2014 by M S Smith

[Quixote]

Not all cactus collectors are 'spiny'. I see many friendly people on this forum, in fact nearly only friendly people.

[mutant]

come on, a bit of flaming never hurt anyone, dont be so pussy about this

MS Smith has proved an awesome debater in terms of tolerance to attacks, I myself have pissed on him a couple times and he is always impressively polite and I have seen the same happen with a couple of other people... so need to worry about the "heat" ... some time ago I had a PM from a meber not so active anymore, with which we had a few beefs, to tell me how he missed our "fights" and arguements, and all" .

Like I have said before, we dont all have to be peace-hibby heads, well not all of us...

Michael initially admitted he is partly responsible for some confusion created in the early days around this name,"short spined peruvianus", he said very discreetly, but he said it..

I have to add, Michael, that I too have been confused by seeing this name (most likely by you) referring to an obvious pachanoi mosntrosa, actually I think this is the cactus kada has been distributing and one of the clones I have been giving out. This means this name "short spined peruvianus" has never been cancelled as utterly wrong and confusing, as I first got into cacti in 2007..

I also think this clone (if it is indeed what I have and call kada ) grows slower , in average, than a crest-crest pachanoi, maybe because of all the halts.

at the end of the day I too think zellys attack was too harsh.. maybe he meant the name "short spined peruvianus" was wrong all the way?

PS: And now I have to return to my meditation as I am about to graft some serious shit

Edited June 29, 2014 by mutant

[M S Smith]

I once won the "Master Debater" award over at The Nook, and this regardless of my decidedly unpopular political leanings. It is because no debate is a good debate without politics and religion that I've formed such a demeanor in the face of prodding. Niceties only go so far though; I am not at all a peacenik, but I understand when clarity is better than confrontation.

And for those who are curious, I am a libertarian on the "conservative" end of the spectrum and a classical freethinging agnostic.

~Michael~