That looks more like my bridgesii seedlimgs than my peruviarus seedlings. But I have no expertise in this area.

Non-PC pachanoi; Poekus

and bridgesii seedling; a.lurker

Just popping in to say i think people are way to quick to throw out the PC panchanoi ID on every panchanoi with short spines, I have heard stuff like pc aeroles are white where non pc are brown or red, but i dont think this is a good indicator either.

I have had some cactus ID'd on forums and everyone says PC, i in fact tested the cactus and it was very powerful, the most powerful ive had except for bridgesii.

Just saying i think some stuff that may look pc is in fact true panchanoi strong san pedro

Gonna have to agree with the bridgessi id here for a.lurker. I had 10 of those same looking seedlings (bridgesii), and given time, they got spines that were far different than any torch i've seen, and to my knowledge as advertised bridgesii.

What really made mine pop out their spines was natural summertime growth, i assumed the seedlings i had (and the ones you do as well a.lurker) were grown under artifical light.

Please post the weights and recovery data!
And images!

Is this T. Bridgesii monstrose? Vendor photo, I am considering purchasing. It looks like it to me, but I don't see any spines. What do you think?

Looks like cuts of bridgesii monstrose aka TBM, however they do not tend to grow without areoles and i see none
some forms might branch without them, but I have yet to see that
I would avoid that vendor.

I have one planted without areoles, and its growing. Very slowly, but growing. Think i brought another up like that, and eventually, it pupped.

But i do have a small 2" TBM, similar to those in the pics, and its rooted and getting bigger, slowly though. To be fair it was planted last fall and spent the winter inside in hibernation as well.

This morning I got a new cactus in a gardening center. I think it's an trichocereus because it looks a lot like some of my peruvianus ones. It's multiple stemmed in a pot size 12.

In the last picture it looks like a developing flower is coming out of the cactus.

Can somebody confirm this is a trichocereus?

i'm not 100 percent sure its a trich- but regardless will make good grafting stock.

the bud looking thing is an aerial root

I'll use some to experiment with grafting. Today I bought the rest of the tray because they were a steal.
Here are some more pictures. The spine length seems to vary by the stem. On equally big stems the spines can range between 1 cm- 8 cm. But rib-wise, aereola size and color they are identical.

I really would think it is a trichocereus and it comes close to a peruvianus but I'm still not sure.
There are quite some cacti which are like an identical twins to trichocereus for a non-epert.

Hey Lurker those are some sharp looking tom's. They are especially cool because the pups tend to burst right out of the side! It almost looks like an alien trying to tear itself free from the plant.

@Pokeus those look poker some sort or Peruvianoid possibly cuzoid.

TBM clone 'b' i've the clone 'a'

peruvianoid seems legit imho..the third on the right has short spines like cuzcoensis yes

the first 2 pictures i'd said pachanoi..but than pach/peruv..probably it's a hybrid

This.

Has anyone actually searched for information for this "PC clone"? Because there is literally no information on the internet about it besides that "largely accurate media" website, and as far as I'm concerned "largely accurate" doesn't mean correct. I definitely do not claim to be an expert but through my research of this subject it is clear that there is no clear answer.

Cactus traits vary significantly due to growing conditions and other factors so it is not entirely appropriate to try to guess IDs just by a photograph. One pedro might have brown spines while another has white, one's ribs may be bumpy while another's is smooth. I am just saying these things because I really have tried to find an answer for the "pachanoi vs. pachanot" conundrum but there simply is no story here. Not every pedro is going to look identical so why do people think this is a good way to sort things out? I just can't accept that anyone really knows this stuff definitively. Do a google search for this subject and you will literally find nothing beyond a couple websites (including this one and other similar forums) which are all supported by the one "largely accurate media" site, which is pretty worthless if you ask me.

I just had to say something about this because it's been irking me for a while. I thought our third eyes were supposed to be open enough to realize when there's no definitive information on a subject. The pictures on that site all look incredibly similar and there is almost no actual information on there. Am I the only one who thinks this?

add this term to your search: backberg clone
basically the PC is a landscaping cacti brought here by backberg over 50yrs ago and propagated by the thousands via cuttings- which is why it is so common

Ok... well here's what I found http://www.largelyaccura...ichocereus_pachanot.html

The header on this page is "Backeberg's clone and why it is mythology", which to me screams confusion. Still, there is no definitive information regarding this subject besides loads of conjecture and a dusty old photograph. I even took a look at some of the other forums that showed up with my search and there is not a single concrete answer. K Trout seems to talk in circles so that nothing is really said and the answer is ultimately left up to the viewer who is provided no legitimate information besides "look at this and then look at this and take a guess". I even found on another forum where Trout himself asked how to properly ID cacti because apparently he does not really know.

I am willing to believe that there is a common pedro clone that does not have much entheogenic properties (and that is probably why it is common) but there is not even a single website officially dedicated to the Backeberg clone or his research. Wikipedia even says this:

"Although he collected and described many new species and defined a number of new genera, much of his work was based on faulty assumptions about the evolution of cacti and was too focused on geographic distribution; many of his genera have since been reorganized or abandoned. The botanist David Hunt is quoted as saying that he "left a trail of nomenclatural chaos that will probably vex cactus taxonomists for centuries."

Confusion seems to be the name of the game here. Is there any actual authority on cacti that can distinguish a real pedro from a "fake" one?

I found a cactus in a botanical garden that seemed to be a T. Peruvianus. I cut a pup from the mother plant. There was a sign with 3 names on it for the 3 cactus there were in the place,
1-Cereus Peruvianus
2-Cereus Uruguayanus
3-Cereus Validus

My doubt is, the mother plant of the pup no way is a cereus. The other 2 plants were cereus (slim ribs). I guess there was a misspelling for the nomenclature, an error to name the species. I think it is a T. Peruvianus or a T. Uyupampensis (not Uruguayanus). Either way, not a cereus for sure. What do you think? Could it be a T. Cuzcoensis?

nice looking plant- get any pics of the mature parent?

was the botanical garden giving cutting out or did you just help your self ....?

Didn't took a pic from the mature plant. Yes, I helped myself.. but don't get me wrong. I'm all about self-suficiency and I like to think, planting all kinds of plants is good.. also I wont eat the cactus, yet, maybe in 5 years the point being, I didn't picked it up to just satisfy my eating habit. I picked it up to give it opportunity to flourish in other place too (my garden)

By the way, it is the place where I work, in a gift shop, and actually it would be a good idea having pruned parts of plants from maintenance work to be sold, but I seriously doubt that that is in concordance of the garden policy, to just give away cuttings of exotic plants (unfortunatly).

Will take pics of the mature plant when I can.