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

Trichocereus ID

Migrated topic.
'Coatl

'Coatl

Teotzlcoatl
Trichocereus bridgesii
tricho13.jpg




Trichocereus macrogonus
1391279253_7df46bc07d_o.jpg




Trichocereus pachanoi
821037742_14e88f0bfc_o.jpg




Trichocereus peruvianus
pics119.jpg



Trichocereus cuzcoensis
820068067_4dad0a49b1_o.jpg




Trichocereus species Predominant cultivar "Pachanot"
819991363_5dd4b2cadb_o.jpg




In this thread I will offer many opinions and I will do my best to back them up with factual information from reliable sources.

Before proceeding I'd like to say that...


I personally (personal opinion) like to break the Trichocereus genus down into three aggregates or groups(consisting of the most meaningful species)-

Trichocereus bridgesii (Also encompasses Trichocereus scopulicola and other related strains)

Trichocereus peruvianus (Also encompasses Trichocereus macrogonus, Trichocereus cuzcoensis and Trichocereus huanucoensis)

Trichocereus pachanoi (Also encompasses Trichocereus riomizquensis, Trichocereus "short-spined" peruvianus and other related strains)


Each aggregate contains many different strains and clones of varying types, compounded by the fact that Trichocereus readily interbreed






Information the Predominant cultivar pachanoi also know as "Pachanot"-

"Pachanot" a term coined by Mr. K. Trout, author of many wonderful books including "Sacred Cacti".

Pachanot links-

K.Trout's "Pachanot" Info

"Pachanot" at the Corroboree

Comparing the "Pachanot" with real Trichocereus pachanoi





Information on the supposed Trichocereus "Shorted-Spined peruvianus"-

Links to the Corroboree

Will the real "short-spined peruvianus" please stand up?

Mr.Smith says-
Below is the so-called "short spined T. peruvianus." This name appear to be completely of my own doing many many years ago when it was sent to me simply as a “T. peruvianus” and I added the "short spined" moniker to differentiate it from the common long spined form of T. peruvianus that I have more recently suspected as in fact T. cuzcoensis, though this is not without question itself. Nor should the name "T. peruvianus" be without question regarding this plant. This original "short spined T. peruvianus" is by my current estimate simply a distinct form of the variable T. pachanoi of Ecuador and Peru, but differs in a small number of ways, particularly in its regular formation of three spines per areole, often dropping to one, and this one with age being able to growth to upwards of 5cm.. With this in mind any plant being called the “short spined T. peruvianus” should be only this particular and original clone that I applied the moniker to, but really this name should be dropped all together.
Click to expand...

There you have it, not only does Mr.Smith share my opinion that the "short-spined" peruvianus is really just a Trichocereus pachanoi, but he also thinks that the name "short-spined peruvianus" should no longer be used (I infer because he believes, as I do that the name "short-spined peruvianus" is an oxymoron! T. pachanoi has short spines and T.peruvianus has long spines)!


Another "Short-Spined Peruvianus" link (Proof!)
 
Please keep this thread going 'Coatl....and add as many reliable sources as you can find to back up your claims. The more sources the better.
 
Oh cool I am going to try to get a pic of mine on here this weekend to hopefully get a solid ID on it...all I know is it was labled peruvian torch when I bought it..I would like to know becasue I have yet to test it but the dried cactus at the shop where I got my cutting is rel strong so I am hoping its from the same genetics(prob not, i bet they order the dried chips from elsewhere)
 
oh one thing to note - when referring to my cacti as "short spine torch" that name is the same but is unrelated - its a local name here for it that has been used for many years.

Also on : "but differs in a small number of ways, particularly in its regular formation of three spines per areole, often dropping to one, and this one with age being able to growth to upwards of 5cm.."

on my torch - there are the same amount of spines as on my other torches which is generally 6 or more.
 
neat thread has anyone tried scopulicola I heard at the corroboree it's more potent than pedro,but maybe not as much as bridgesii? I don't think anybody sells this cactus besides Australians.
 
oh one thing to note - when referring to my cacti as "short spine torch" that name is the same but is unrelated - its a local name here for it that has been used for many years.
Click to expand...

Then obviously that is something different.

But I still think if it has short spines it's going to be a T. pachanoi, but who knows... I'd have to actually see a picture... do you have one?
 
I've never tried Trichocereus scopulicola, so I couldn't say.

Sacred Succulents sells them I believe.
 
awesome - i found what needed to be said to stop you from attacking me about what spp my cactus is yay.
il get some nice pix and closeup pix of the spines of both pedro and torch - just to clarify further.
 
Dude no attack. I just offered some factual information.

No drama brother, it's all good.

I'd love to see a picture! Whatever it is you speak highly of this cactus and I can't wait to see it!
 
The Corroboree site is clunky to navigate... Is there any way to show all the posts in a thread? instead of clicking on every single response?

*edit*


Found it... options, top right ;)
 
Phlux- said:
awesome - i found what needed to be said to stop you from attacking me about what spp my cactus is yay.
il get some nice pix and closeup pix of the spines of both pedro and torch - just to clarify further.
Click to expand...

Further on what?
 
Btw, whenever I hear the name "Peruvian torch" it gives me a funny mental image of ancient Peruvians walking in the dark holding flaming cacti in their hands...

(sorry for the offtopic)
 
[quote='Coatl]I'd say Trichocereus pachanoi for that one.
[/quote]

Would you like to explain us why do you think it is a pachanoi? which features make it a pachanoi and not a scopulicola?
 
Kemist that looks like a REAL Trichocereus pachanoi.

Frenzal I think that is T. pachanoi because T. scopulicola is more of a deeper green and well... it's mostly just the over "look" of it.
 
frenzel - i recon that is actually a scop, i have a friend who is a very good grower with some nice specimens with a very similar one - his name is zaorr and pix of it are available at the nook i think.
and kemist - does look like a torch eh.
 
[quote='Coatl]Kemist that looks like a REAL Trichocereus pachanoi.

Frenzal I think that is T. pachanoi because T. scopulicola is more of a deeper green and well... it's mostly just the over "look" of it.
[/quote]

Phlux- said:
frenzel - i recon that is actually a scop, i have a friend who is a very good grower with some nice specimens with a very similar one - his name is zaorr and pix of it are available at the nook i think.
and kemist - does look like a torch eh.
Click to expand...

'Coatl and Phlux, please try to make this disagreements on these cactuses' ID more productive. So far I have not seen "real" arguments as to why the something is pachanoi, peruvianus, scop, etc, only what seems to be a "gut" feeling as to what these may be.

Gut feeling and instinct are useful, but do not help the discussion and they do not let the others learn. Gut feeling is very subjective. If you want to undertake the task of botanical identification please justify your ID with facts. What I am asking for here is for anyone IDing something to write something like that:

It is the X species because: a) it has this length of spines, b) it has this many ribs/shapes of ribs c) it has this colour and it shows "frosting", d) it has these characteristics (e.g. V-shaped notch above the areoles) e) etc etc etc (you name it!).

As well as write that it is NOT the Y, Z species because a, b, c characteristics do not match etc etc. If possible please cite your sources for each characteristics you assign to each different trich. cactus.

I know guys that what I ask is much work. But it is much work till we agree on a list of characteristics that discriminate one trich from others. This is the only way to avoid vague IDs, to keep the standard of the thread high as well as teach other people something worthy!

Thanks!
 
Back
Top Bottom