Print

[plantlight]

Here's two slightly different views of the same garden.  Four plants have been marked with color bars for orientation & identification purposes....can you name all the trich plants shown?   

Haha,  Trout warns against this and seems happy to leave the waters muddy as demonstrated in the following quote also from page 7 of Notes on San Pedro:

"We would also suggest that should our readers encounter anyone who considers themselves an expert on this genus, or anyone who insists that they know what differentiates, say, a short-spined peruvianus from a long-spined pachanoi, the best course of action is probably to nod one’s head, indicating a lack of desire to argue, & leave them to their beliefs."

Now I know why everyone was nodding their heads at my efforts to do so.
This subject is difficult to talk about but it is fun to try to talk about it.

2 Likes New Wisdom and AcaciaAve like this.

[EIRN]

Another source of info.
http://www.sacredcactus.com/index.htm

4 Likes AcaciaAve, plantlight, LIBERTYNY and mj like this.

[plantlight]

I personally join Pachanoi and Peruvianus together but even if kept separate; Macrogonus is a subspecies of Peruvianus similar to Cuzcoensis also being a subspecies of Peruvianus.

Lots of good points in your post but this one I've really been thinking about.  In a way, perhaps none of these should be considered a separate species but perhaps individual sub-species.  What really got me thinking about this was when I posted my Narcissus Tazetta this morning: http://sharetheseeds.me/forum/index.php?topic=3184.msg25434#msg25434 I knew it was a Tazetta but every time I've ever referenced this bulb before today, I've called it Narcissus/Italicus thinking it was genus/species.  However, when I checked to be sure before posting I found my error.  It is Narcissus tazetta var. italicus

Have you heard of anyone else bring this issue up before? 

[modern]

Well misplant I agree to most of what you mention however there is a basic ID key to atleast narrow the cactus to a few possible candidates. Different growing conditions; pot vs land, full sun vs shade, and possibly feeding conditions or some other factors will play into characteristics as well as genetics. I guess I could be wrong considering some Peruvianus localities look on par with cuzco. You do have lots of experience and quite the collection and I am only starting really so  Also some of your bridgesii (hybrids) planted in the ground have impressive diameters and I would likely misID some as Pachanoi/Peruvianus.

I don't claim to be a pro ID'er and also prefer to just group plants rather than try to find an 'exact' ID. BTW I'd call those all pachanoi/peruvianus as far as I can tell from afar. The Yellow tag is the more common pachanoi available here in the states and the others probably more accepted as peruvianus. How much time elapsed between the two photos? 2 years or less?


plantlight I think this issue comes up once in a while do to the way people label or talk about certain plants like T.Huarazensis. It is a Pachanoi from around Huara but rather than labeling it T. Pachanoi var(locality?) Huarazensis they did similar to you. Same goes with a few other plants from my understanding like T. puquiensis,
T. ayacucho, and T. puquio. Some consider them pachanoi others peruvianus I just call them pachanoi as I see them as the same.


You should consider just collecting cuttings from 'trusted' sources like misplant and other established members in the community. Buying from eBay or other questionable sources may lead to issues in the future like MANY people have grown peruvianus from a source (BBB?)and it was cuzco and inactive. Some people just keep what the seller had and kept record of the seller so like Peruvianus (WSS) or w.e.

I personally like the way cuzco look and tend to use it as a grafting stock... If I had the space and land I would have a few growing as they are quite impressive and robust growers.

1 Like plantlight likes this.

[Auxin]

I personally join Pachanoi and Peruvianus together but even if kept separate; Macrogonus is a subspecies of Peruvianus similar to Cuzcoensis also being a subspecies of Peruvianus.

Botanical nomenclature has chronological priority.
T. cuzcoensis was first described in 1920, pachanoi also in 1920, peruvianus in 1920 as well, macrogonus... in 1909
Collapse them into one species and they would all be subtypes of T. macrogonus

2 Likes AcaciaAve and plantlight like this.

[misplant]

The Yellow tag is the more common pachanoi available here in the states and the others probably more accepted as peruvianus

modern-  here's a recent pic of the base of 'yellow' with a new pup.  When I acquired it as a small pup, I was told it was SS03.  Today it more closely resembles 2 other TPM plants in my garden, although I understand SS03 is a peruvianus also....TPM's tend to remain a deep dark green color in all lighting/growing conditions & some being more monstrous than others.

As for cuzcoensis, it's interesting that Trout has it included in his listing of cactus containing certain alkaloids. (SC3_A2.pdf)

Years ago i acquired a certain specimen of cuzcoensis from Brujo de la Colonia from the long defunct Edot forum, who regarded it as his favorite teacher plant, although he referred to it as a peruvianus.   Experience has illuminated that some specimens of cuzcoensis are and some are not.

[oplopanax]

I have interacted with a T cuzcoensis in a way that was very interesting, I think there could be more biochemical studies around that one...

2 Likes AcaciaAve and plantlight like this.