-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Help ID a new Trichocereus
- Thread starter magic9
- Start date
nicechrisman
Kin
Kinda looks more bridgesii to me, but it looks a bit different from most I've seen. Can't put my finger on the difference.
Looks like peruvianus to me. There is a species identification guide in another forum here written by Keeper Trout and his gaggle of scientists. It's a free download but they are hoping for very small do actions from people.
Check it out below, and if you can donate like 4 bucks. Please do so!!! Help the cause!
Good luck!
Btw, how much was she?
Check it out below, and if you can donate like 4 bucks. Please do so!!! Help the cause!
Good luck!
Btw, how much was she?
Doesn't really look bridgesoid to me at all. Too many spines on each areole and the coloration doesn't really fit. Looks peruvianoid, but with a slight difference. I think it's a cuzcoensis. I'm not too good at IDing trichs though. Plus they can take on such different forms depending on growth conditions.
If you don't mind I could take this to another forum I'm on and ask for an ID. (SAB)
If you don't mind I could take this to another forum I'm on and ask for an ID. (SAB)
I was told on another forum that it's either a T. cuzcoensis or a Stetsonia Coryne. They said it's most likely a Stetsonia Coryne though. Not even a trich. But it has a similarity to a cuzcoensis.
So like I suspected it might be a cuzcoensis. But may not even be a trichocereus. It looks more like a Stetsonia Coryne than a T. cuzcoensis after hearing the recommendation and looking at pictures of them on the internet.
Here's a link to the thread I posted at SAB. Trichocereus ID
EDIT: There's been more speculation about it on the thread I posted. I guess there's only one way to know if it's a trich short of DNA testing.
So like I suspected it might be a cuzcoensis. But may not even be a trichocereus. It looks more like a Stetsonia Coryne than a T. cuzcoensis after hearing the recommendation and looking at pictures of them on the internet.
Here's a link to the thread I posted at SAB. Trichocereus ID
EDIT: There's been more speculation about it on the thread I posted. I guess there's only one way to know if it's a trich short of DNA testing.
So ive taken a look at both of those cacti strains. I am no expert.. ive got 2 weeks of exp 
but i definitely dont think its the Stetsonia coryne mostly because its spines are nothing like it. Stetsonia coryne is refereed to as a toothpick cactus and it makes sense based on how its spines are super long and many.
As far as the cuzcoensis possibility.. im not sure either. Trouts latest book shows cuzcoensis and it looks nothing like mine. Mostly note the inset/indented areola's on the cuzco. vs mine. Noticeably different i think.
I appreciate yall helping me ident this cactus. I really hope its a Var. of peruvian torch but at the very least im just hoping its active. Even if its not, its still one of my more sexier cacti and ill keep it of course.
but i definitely dont think its the Stetsonia coryne mostly because its spines are nothing like it. Stetsonia coryne is refereed to as a toothpick cactus and it makes sense based on how its spines are super long and many. As far as the cuzcoensis possibility.. im not sure either. Trouts latest book shows cuzcoensis and it looks nothing like mine. Mostly note the inset/indented areola's on the cuzco. vs mine. Noticeably different i think.
I appreciate yall helping me ident this cactus. I really hope its a Var. of peruvian torch but at the very least im just hoping its active. Even if its not, its still one of my more sexier cacti and ill keep it of course.
I would be more stoked if it was a cuzcoensis if I were you. But I love the trichocereus species that aren't so common more than popular species (pachanoi peruvianus ect..) But to me it looks like a hard grown (harsh light ect) cuzcoensis. Which is prettymuch a peruvianus. It also looks very similar to a hard grown stetsonia as well. But You get to actually look at the plant so I'm sure you have a better idea.
You can tell by the yellow color that it's been in very high light. Which can make it take on a different form than one grown in a more forgiving light source.
You can tell by the yellow color that it's been in very high light. Which can make it take on a different form than one grown in a more forgiving light source.
Trouts latest book has Cuzcoensis which does look (to me) exactly like yours - in my opinion..... check out page 368 & 369 - and as I said before - still looks peruvianus to me and it turns out that Cuzocoensis is a variant of peruvianus... check out page 368 - and tell me what you think?
Looks a little off for cuzcoensis, most cuzcoensis are however totally inactive.
It might be a hybrid, a peruvianoid or a cuzcoensis variation, the tarma variation of peruvianus looks very similar to this and is somewhat related to cuzcoensis and is active.
Is a small slice from it bitter?
It might be a hybrid, a peruvianoid or a cuzcoensis variation, the tarma variation of peruvianus looks very similar to this and is somewhat related to cuzcoensis and is active.
Is a small slice from it bitter?
HMM check out this cacti. This was right next to mine, was labelled as Peruvianus as well. Maybe these pics will help further. Again i appreciate the effort guys. I really like to know what i have even if its not active.
This cacti attached is my brothers purchased the same day.
Archmage i agree the yellow color looks similar but i think thats just from lots o sun. Notice on page 368 that the areola's are more inset in a sort of V wedge. BUT maybe its just growth differences but the same strain.
Hostilis, i cant find a straight answer on activity in the Cuzcoensis or not. According to Trout if im reading this book right, there is .5-5% mescaline per 100g fresh.
This cacti attached is my brothers purchased the same day.
Archmage i agree the yellow color looks similar but i think thats just from lots o sun. Notice on page 368 that the areola's are more inset in a sort of V wedge. BUT maybe its just growth differences but the same strain.
Hostilis, i cant find a straight answer on activity in the Cuzcoensis or not. According to Trout if im reading this book right, there is .5-5% mescaline per 100g fresh.
Attachments
I'm about 99% sure it's a Trichocereus cuzcoensis. Some VERY knowledgeable people at Shaman Australis Botanicals ID'd it for me.
You're lucky to find it. It's active and is a variant of a peruvianus basically like archemage said.
You're lucky to find it. It's active and is a variant of a peruvianus basically like archemage said.
So i cut a piece off this sexy cactus and tasted it. It didnt taste outright bitter or anything. I could taste somthing.. it wasnt sweet or anything. Would the bitter mescaline taste be super obvious or subtle?
I see. I shouldn't say 99% sure of what it is. It looks pretty cuzcoensis to me. But like i said, i'm not too good at IDing trichs.
What do you think it is DG?
And about the actives. I was just going off of what trout's notes said. I've never tried it myself. Now thinking about the percentages i could see how that wouldn't be very active being at .5-5mg per 100g.
What do you think it is DG?
And about the actives. I was just going off of what trout's notes said. I've never tried it myself. Now thinking about the percentages i could see how that wouldn't be very active being at .5-5mg per 100g.
