• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Identification of presumed T. Peruvianus

Migrated topic.
workbench

workbench

Rising Star
Hi. This is my first post apart from my introductory essay.

Some months ago I got 3 presumed Trichocereus Peruvianus from a local grower. They grow a lot of other cacti and plants. Based on the Trichocereus ID thread by 'Coatl, I compared my cacti to the images. Now I think that they may be T. Cuzcoensis. After a lot of online research, I'm still a little bit confused with this.

Knowing that there are some very knowledgeable cacti growers here, I'd like to submit my images for identification. I took pictures of two of them, but the three are nearly identical.

Full body:
yHmMF.jpg


The heads:
STU5v.jpg

I7Jia.jpg


The areoles:
bfJez.jpg

2FaAN.jpg
 
I am by no means an expert on cactus IDs but I do grow my own cacti and have had several people with more knowledge and experience at IDing cacti either verify my IDing of cacti or ID my new cacti for me. Personally, I don't know anything about cuzcoenis, so I can't comment on your potentially IDing them as such. I can however, state that the cacti pictured here do not seem to have the deep blue, blue/green that I have come to identify as one of the most striking characteristics of the Peruvianus.

It could be the picture/light or it could be that I'm just wrong, but those cacti look markedly different colorwise, and slightly different physically than the Peruvianus that I have and have had verified as such.areolas also appear to be a bit lighter and the spines a tad different too, but as I said, I'm no expert, just tryin to help. My gut says it's probably not Peruvianus.
 
Yeah, I do not think this is T. peruvianus. Sorry mate! The spines seem too long and marked, and I can't see any of the blue/blue-green color that T. peruvianus should have. T. cuzcoensis seems like the correct ID according to 'Coatl's thread, but I am not familiar enough with these cacti to make a definitive statement. All my feelings goes, however, to that this is not T. peruvianus

But hey, isn't T. cuzcoensis active too?
 
Yes, Evening, in theory they are active. Although with a much lower concentration of alkaloids than T. Peruvianus.
 
I thought cuzcoensis but I'm not all that well versed in a vast variety of cacti, but of the ones I know that seems the closest. I'm going mainly by the appearence of the spines on this one.

Some cuzcoensis are quite active, but I think the most common clone is quite low in alkaloids, but by no means absent of them.
 
Almost 100% sure it's T. Cuzcoensis. The waviness between spines is a dead giveaway. But I'd like to see a larger shot of the cactus in full growth, as the waviness may disappear. Some of my "MG Pacahnoi" and "Peru GF" look sort of similar to your first picture.
 
Back
Top Bottom