ID questions

Posted on July 25, 2015 by admin

This summarizes what questions exist about the cuttings that you gave me along with the names recently provided in email. I wanted to put them all together for easier review. Thanks for all of your thoughts on those! And also thanks again for the plants.

Numbers were assigned only for sake of this conversation and lack any additional meaning or significance in their order. I’ve recently been rearranging them to prepare for removal of the J-numbering.

One positive change occurred last year in the form of that large California Bay being removed. This provided the cactus garden area with in-between several to a few additional hours of sun through the year (at least 4 hours more sun in part of it). They’ve responded really well so the potted cacti were moved out of the shade house with plans for expanding the cactus bed to incorporate them too. This is easily the most unfriendly environment I’ve exposed cacti to but perhaps now I can manage to create a functional niche due to the changes?

I’m inserting your answers and thoughts as we go. Whenever this is completed or close enough I’ll remove our dialogue.

J-1

“… the exact cross escapes my mind, however it is one of either SS02 X juuls/peruvianus or the reverse […] from seed crossed by Anonymous from TN. […]
It is very likely [it] has SS02 for the mother, I believe I did try to provide an assortment of SS02 mother crossed with different things…”

Trichocereus J-01

J-9

J-9 on 25 July 2015

J-2

“It appears to be SS02 X ? (Sold as such by them) and the pollen donor appears to have been the huanucoensis material, which SS/BK noted as in flower.”

Trichocereus J-02

“SS02 X SS01, a particularly vigorous selection.”

J4 on 21july2015

J-3

“J3 SS02 X PC which when I gave it to you looked more PC like if I recall correctly.”

Trichocereus J-03

J-6 (and tag)

“SS02 X PC”

J-6 24 July 2015

J-7

“SS02 X PC”?

J-7 24 July 2015

J-8 (and tag)

“SS02 X PC”

J-8 24 July 2015

J-5

“Mesa Garden ‘small spine’ peruvianus aka pachanoi. […] Seed purchased right around 2000.”

J-5 23july2015

J-10

“Mesa Garden ‘small spine’ peruvianus aka pachanoi. […] Seed purchased right around 2000.”

J-10 on 25 July 2015

J-11

“Mesa Garden ‘small spine’ peruvianus aka pachanoi. […] Seed purchased right around 2000.”

J-11 on 25 July 2015

J-12

This too was attacked by some sort of apical rot in the shade house this last winter. It will probably recover but that is still uncertain at the moment. The tip is internally collapsed & hollow due to that.

J-12 on 25 July 2015

J-13

“SS01 X PC”

J-13 on 25 July 2015

Trichocereus pallarensis from SS.

This was attacked by some sort of apical rot while in the shade house this last winter but seems to have survived.

pallarensis

The last cutting is tagged Kimura’s Giant but I have not yet taken separate images of it.

I believe that the ID is right on that plant.

Mixed shots of J-6 — J-8 with added labels (most also show J-5)

Some peruvianus in the garden

Posted on July 24, 2015 by admin

Some of the Trichocereus peruvianus presently surviving in my garden.

A rather typical Trichocereus peruvianus.

Trichocereus peruvianus

A rooted Trichocereus peruvianus cutting from the Eltzner collection.

This form stays completely erect and commonly grows to at least 15 feet tall and 6.5 inches in diameter. It can get bigger on both counts. A basal section that was almost 10 inches in diameter has been observed in Oakland, California.

A Trichocereus peruvianus from GF’s collection (ELF?)

This form shows a strong tendency to arch and often falls over becoming prostrate after it has reached a few feet in length. If not synonymous with, this is at least very similar to the Type from the canyon of the Rio Rimac in Peru.

Images of the Type of Trichocereus peruvianus occurring near Matucana.

The next four photographs were taken by Grizzly of wild plants.

Trichocereus peruvianus photographed near Matucana by Grizzly

aff. huanucoensis (HBG)

Posted on July 23, 2015 by admin

Trichocereus aff. huanucoensis

A cutting was acquired from the Huntington some years ago thanks to the kindness and generosity of Gary Lyons. As soon as growth permitted it was cut half and rooted.

The mother plant has lost its accession card (and therefore its data) but Jon Trager told me that, due to its accession number and placement in their garden, he suspected it may have been grown from seeds provided to HBG by Harry Johnson during the 1950s.

The plants of Johnson, Akers, Ritter and Hutchison which would have been described in a monograph in preparation on Trichocereus was completely derailed by Curt Backeberg’s deliberately rushed 1956 publication of the horribly flawed Backeberg & Rauh “Descriptiones Cactacearum novarum“. Backeberg’s apparent motivation was in scooping them and he was criticized loudly by Myron Kimnach for doing so. In a review (quoted farther below) Kimnach comments: “[…] the customary low quality of Backeberg’s work sinks to a grotesque level [..] he has employed questionable ethics in publishing a number of Rauh’s collections which he knew had been collected earlier by Johnson, Ritter and Akers and which he also knew the latter were planning to publish.” (Backeberg’s response to a friend was quoted to be “I must require that my special and unusual method is consented.”)

This one, however, appears to me to be a rather typical T. pachanoi as might come from Peru.

Trichocereus aff. huanucoensis

aff. huanucoensis

Trichocereus aff. huanucoensis

A cutting that appears to be identical was sent to me by a correspondent who acquired his plant unlabelled many years earlier at the *truly amazing* California Cactus Center. This is one of my all-time favorite nurseries and is owned by some really nice people.

thought synonymous with aff. huanucoensis (CCC)

Interestingly, friends who were visiting Huanuco, Peru were unable to locate any pachanoi-peruvianus types in the area until Grizzly thought to explore the nearby wooded ravines. Images of his finds from near Huanuco can be viewed in Cactus Chemistry By Species.

Kimnach’s review of the 1956 ‘Descriptiones Cactacearum Novarum I‘ appeared in the 1957 Cactus & Succulent Journal of America 29: 146.

“The work will probably always be regarded as a curiosity of botanical literature, for here the customary low quality of Backeberg’s work sinks to a grotesque level. Indeed, it could well be used as a classroom example of what the conscientious taxonomist should avoid in his own work. In the first place he has employed questionable ethics in publishing a number of
Rauh’s collections which he knew had been collected earlier by Johnson, Ritter and Akers and which he also knew the latter were planning to publish. Secondly he seems to have described every minor variation so that for example we are confronted with some 20 new Haageocereus species from one river-valley in Peru! The descriptions are ridiculously short and he fails to mention how the new species differ from one another and from older species. The result is that practically none of his new taxa are established as being actually distinct.
“It can be imagined what the effect of these 200 newly published, but inadequately distinguished, species will be on the revision of Peruvian cacti now in progress by different workers. Their task has been difficult at best, due to the amateurish manner in which most of the older species were published. Now that confusion, for which Backeberg was also largely responsible, has been fantastically multiplied.”

The outcome of Backberg’s shenanigans was that the revision that was then underway in the hands of far more competent botanists was abandoned by those workers. Very little remains as evidence outside of Hutchison’s herbarium voucher sheets for Trichocereus huanucoensis.

Trichocereus tulhuayacensis from Knize

Posted on July 23, 2015 by admin

Another cactus cutting obtained from Krazy Karel.

Karel Knize originally offered this for sale as a “rare” red-flowered form of T. peruvianus. He wanted $100US plus shipping. His first claim was that he had only found one single plant in the wild but he later modified this to finding four plants.
It arrived more correctly identified as T. tulhuayensis (sic for T. tulhuayacensis). It was one of a comparatively few cuttings from Knize to actually arrive with any sort of a label.

Before leaving Texas I had an accident when the plant fell on me and was broken in half with my hand (adding $2K in surgeon fees). The mother was given to SS to propagate and they kindly gave me back this cutting. It has flowered red for them but I lack an image of that.

Trichocereus tulhuayacensis (Knize)

cuzcoensis (Eltzner via GF)

Posted on July 23, 2015 by admin

Trichocereus cuzcoensis from GF’s collection.

Said to have been acquired from Eltzner. Identification as a cuzcoensis has been questioned by some people; apparently based on the relative lack of swollen spine bases when compared to many other cuzcoensis forms.

This was purportedly wild-collected in the vicinity of Cuzco, Peru prior to reaching Eltzner’s hands.

A point where I have a question is that the large adult plant at Eltzner’s (which appears to be this same thing) grows to around 8 or 9 feet tall and is freely offsetting. The plants growing at GF’s were all less than around 3-4 foot and offset much less vigorously. That behavior has persisted on both counts since it has been in my hands.

Trichocereus cuzcoensis (Eltzner via GF) in July of 2015

Sold as San Pedro 2

Posted on July 22, 2015 by admin

Trichocereus peruvianus sold as San Pedro (Peru)
Claimed to have been collected from the slopes above Matucana but corroboration would be nice.

These are several sorts sold by this vendor (HdP). One of the others can be seen at https://troutsnotes.com/sold-as-san-pedro/ and the rest of the survivors will be added as time permits. All of these cuttings survived many months tangled up in the mail system.

Numbering was arbitrarily assigned and is being used only for sake of being able to segregate them in this pictorial.

Cutting 02 and new growth

a San Pedro from Peru (02)

Cutting 04 and new growth

Sold as San Pedro (03)

Trichocereus-peruvianus_from-Peru_03_23july2015_IMGP7424

Sold as San Pedro (03)

Cutting 05 and new growth

a San Pedro from Peru (05)

Cutting 06 and new growth

a San Pedro from Peru (06)

Trichocereus glaucus Knize

Posted on July 21, 2015 by admin

Trichocereus glaucus sensu Krazy Karel Knize anyway.

There is actually a Trichocereus glaucus Ritter; which is a quite different plant.

This cutting was mailed from Peru to Florida by Knize. It was then remailed to California from there and for unclear reasons soon became lost and forgotten. It has remained largely buried amidst a tangle of Vinca minor and blackberry canes for the last few years. It must be a hardy plant as the spot where it was growing has seen no winter protection for peak cold temperatures into the low 20sF and little if any summer watering attention.

This was recently uncovered, a cutting made of the top, and both were moved to a somewhat better growing location. More images will be added of their recovery as well as some older archival material.

Trichocereus glaucus (sensu Knize ) Small cactus is a terscheckii seedling.

Trichocereus glaucus (sensu Knize)

Trichocereus-glaucus_Knize_via-Avi_19July2015_IMGP7231

Trichocereus glaucus (sensu Knize)

Trichocereus-glaucus_Knize_via-Avi_July2015_IMGP6834

Trichocereus glaucus (sensu Knize)

Trichocereus-glaucus_Knize_via-Avi_July2015_IMGP6849

Trichocereus glaucus (sensu Knize)

Trichocereus-glaucus_Knize_via-Avi_July2015_IMGP6848

Trichocereus glaucus (sensu Knize)

Trichocereus-glaucus_Knize_via-Avi_July2015_IMGP6846

Trichocereus glaucus (sensu Knize)

Trichocereus-glaucus_Knize_via-Avi_July2015_IMGP6842

Trichocereus glaucus (sensu Knize)

Trichocereus-glaucus_Knize_via-Avi_July2015_IMGP6841

Trichocereus glaucus (sensu Knize)

Trichocereus-glaucus_Knize_via-Avi_July2015_IMGP6845

Trichocereus glaucus (sensu Knize)

Trichocereus-glaucus_Knize_via-Avi_July2015_IMGP6844

Trichocereus glaucus (sensu Knize)

Trichocereus scopulicola cutting

Posted on July 21, 2015 by admin

A Trichocereus scopulicola cutting from a plant grown from seed by Archaea. This is a really nice example of the species.

Seeds were of European origin and purchased through SS.
Plant shown is a rooted cutting that has been unearthed for mailing. It was healthy but not happy living here so needed to find a nicer location.

A Trichocereus scopulicola cutting

A Trichocereus scopulicola cutting from a seedgrown plant

A Trichocereus scopulicola cutting

Sold as San Pedro

Posted on July 21, 2015 by admin

A Trichocereus sold as San Pedro (Peru)
Claimed to have been collected from the slopes above Matucana but corroboration would be nice.

This is one of a few from this vendor (HdP). Several of the others can be seen at https://troutsnotes.com/sold-as-san-pedro-2/

Shows features that seem intermediate for pachanoi and peruvianus.

It will be interesting to see what this does with some good sun and free root run. I’m betting that the flowers are going to be awesome.

Trichocereus sold as San Pedro (Peru) shown in 2015

Trichocereus sold as San Pedro (Peru) in 2013

Trichocereus sold as San Pedro (Peru) shown in 2013

Trichocereus sold as San Pedro (Peru) shown in 2013

Trichocereus sold as San Pedro (Peru) in 2009

Trichocereus sold as San Pedro (Peru) shown in 2009

Trichocereus-peruvianus_shortspined_Matucana_arrival

Trichocereus short-spined from Matucana immediately upon unpacking after arrival from Peru

Over the years, Karel Knize has marketed at least half a dozen assorted short-spined collections of wild collected Peruvian plants falling into or in-between T. pachanoi and T. peruvianus under the name & collection number “Trichocereus peruvianus KK242“; all of which he asserted had come from a given range of elevations on the slopes above Matucana despite including geographic names like “Río Chillón” and “Río Lurím” which place them in completely different river systems (The town of Matucana is located in the canyon of the Río Rimac).
While all of the KK242 that Knize has sold as live plants have been either T. peruvianus or T. pachanoi and while some of Knize’s KK242 seeds have in fact produced T. peruvianus plants (for instance what was grown out by Abbey Garden for analysis by Pardanani), it is also true that far more of his seeds, apparently the majority of them, have turned out to be of T. cuzcoensis and some KK242 peruvianus seeds have grown into beautiful T. bridgesii plants. Then there is Knize’s Trichocereus peruvianus KK242 f. Matucana which is unmistakeably a pachanoi. Like so much from Knize, lots of beautiful plants accompanied by a perplexingly excessive amount of noise and confusion about their origins and identities.

Karel Knize actually gives Curt Backeberg a run for the money so far as which weighing which one of the two contributed the most confusion into the world of cacti and cactus nomenclature.

Trichocereus peruvianus KK242 Rio Chillon from Knize

Trichocereus peruvianus KK242 Río Chillón from Knize

Trichocereus “peruvianus” KK242 forma Matucana from Knize

However, Grizzly shared these images a few years back from that same locale above Matucana, Peru:

Trichocereus peruvianus above Matucana with short spine (Grizzly in 2008)

A Trichocereus peruvianus with short spines above Matucana (Grizzly in 2008)

A Trichocereus peruvianus above Matucana showing short spines (Grizzly in 2008)

Grizzly holding a large cutting of a short-spined Trichocereus peruvianus above Matucana in 2008

Trichocereus peruvianus with short spines above Matucana (Grizzly in 2008)

This has been disputed and a counterclaim has arisen that short spined T. peruvianus forms do not exist anywhere around Matucana. (The same person insists that no pachanoi occur in the area except for one single person’s plant which is cultivated inside of town.) Since collections from three sources are also known that claim does not seem to have always been the case but perhaps it is a conclusion that may be true now? Or perhaps the friend dismissing it simply visited too soon after Grizzly’s harvest and no new growth had become visible? I do not know as I have never been to Matucana to find out. Grizzly commented on them being uncommon. Considering that what they found was cut down and chopped into pieces and the other two claims for short spined peruvianoids from above Matucana were both commercial cactus vendors who were selling them as cuttings, perhaps that may hint at one possible reason underlying the perception of scarcity, lack of visibility or even absence?

I am reminded of a joke about an entomologist bragging that he had finally managed to pin enough individuals to elevate the ranking of an endangered species from G2 to G1.

a Trichocereus at GF’s

Posted on July 6, 2015 by admin

Blue Trichocereus growing at GF’s home in Oakland in 2002.

This was the original mother growing at GF’s in Oakland.
I would refer to this as a macrogonus. Or at least it nicely fits one of the views of that ill-fated name macrogonus.
It was in really poor shape but has spawned some offspring.

More views of that sad plant from the same year:

After GF died a few years later, the lower parts of the mother plant were lifted from their soil, scrubbed clean of visible scale and moved.

It put on a series of rather blue pups which have been rooted and given away and one which is still here.

A pup taken as a cutting in 2008

This is one such pup that formed here (shown rooted in 2010).

The mother plant has continued to deteriorate and is now almost dead.

Below is the remnant of that same original base (and a spine close-up) in July 2015.
Notice the girth of the original cutting producing this mother plant. (Some green tissue still exists but the odd green color is latex house paint.)

Base of mother plant in July 2015

Older spine detail (dead tissue)

After rooting and growing in brighter light the cuttings shown above started to look a bit different.
While it has not grown all that much, considering it has been living on a NW facing slope under 40m tall trees it is actually a minor miracle that it has done so well. The past two years it has been in a shadehouse during Winter and moved outdoors in Summer.
The following images of the remaining rooted pup were taken on 7 July 2015.

The above is a mate to what is shown below (pictures taken just before being mailed):

And there is also an unrooted cutting taken from the, now weakening, original cutting obtained from the mother plant at GF’s. (9 July 2015) That too has recently found a nicer home than here.

It will be interesting to learn what it grows to look like once it has some real sun and root space in its life.