Genuine peruvian torch has a color from tip going downward and i cant see that color in these photos...
It could be ..[sanpedro macho]... which is considered a diferent name for peruvianus or atleastr a close relative to ..T.peruvianus...
It looks like sanpedro macho but have to test it to be shure..
If it is ..[Sanpedro macho].. its has a very strong mescaline content...and its a winner..

Also,

Check out pp383 - 385 in KT's 2013 cacti book.

Trichocereus macrogonus.

The similarities are striking.

Wap

I took some close-ups of the spines

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...m=512459&#post512459

A wonderful response from M S Smith on another forum:

I don't think Chalaensis quite fits... The spines are really red at the tip.

EZ, is that the actual SS04 clone or is that just a chalaensis. Because M S Smith is talking about the SS0 clone rather than just any chalaensis.

But either way, i dont really see the resemblance to the SS04 clone or chalaensis.

Someone else reccomended that it could be a Pilosocereus arrabidae.

Just the Chalaensis, but the red spines on the top of the cactus, the knuckling and the spines that eventually turn white are classic characteristics of this cactus. That ss04 looks to be a real fatty!

Here are some close ups of this sexy cactus.

Hostilis i think its T. Cuzcoensis now. Looking at this thread ( https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=6935 ) i can see the resemblance.

Here is what a Stetsonia looks like to compare from the earlier assessment of Stetsonia Coyne.

Definitely doesnt look like my cactus IMO.

They still look pretty similar to me. That one looks more hard grown though with harsher sun resulting in longer spines. But it's still not a 100% match. Also, it does look like the cuzcoensis, but still there is some difference. I'll post these pictures down at SAB and see what they have to say. You should join up over there magic. It's a great forum if you're into cacti cultivation.

what about the areola's being black vs mine being white? I see the centrals do seem to go both up and down like one dude said indicating maybe more likely a cuzco. Youve got me excited for a cuzco.

http://www.largelyaccura...nmedia.com/SanPedro.pdf
collation of data including cuzcoensis

well well, that seems definitive. At least if it is a cuzco.. i then have a sexy ass cuzco imo.

I would like to get a cuzco. Awesome plant you have no matter what it is.

So guys. As some of you know i was recently at a really nice cactus farm and was toured around the place by the grower himself. He's been at it for over 30 years and he was quite knowledgeable. Somthing that struck me though was that he had at least 6+ LARGE stands of this EXACT same plant. 100% exact same plant. The growth patterns were unmistakable. I know that alot of people talked about the fact that this particular plant looked "hard grown" and that may have lead to its current look and that if grown differently or grown to a larger mature size that it would show different characteristics. The thing is, these stands were old and large and looked 100% exactly the same as my little stand. This makes me think that this plant looks exactly as it should. That is is not hard grown or grown in any odd way to change its normal look of growth. All the stands i saw of this plant were either in shade, or no shade, it didnt effect the growth pattern.


The reason i bring this up and this cactus farmer up is that he was very adamant that it was not a T. Cuzcoensis remarking iether that cuzco is normally bigger around or just more round. I cant remember his exact phrasing. But everytime i saw another stand i would comment how i thought it was a cuzco since it was identical to this plant which alot of people believed to be cuzco. This guy said he knew it was a trichocereus and that it was more peruvianus to him if anything.


MAKES ME WONDER YA KNOW?

bio-assay!