Just wondering if anyone can ID this cactus for me. Does it look like it has good genes? I've read that short-spined peruvianus (which this is purported to be) are pretty potent.
Cheers.

Nice plant! Looks like a non PC pachanoi. There is a pretty blurry line between extreme forms of pachanoi and preuvianus so you can call it whatever you want, but it looks like a nice plant to me. Only way to know what it's made of is to give it a taste

I'd love to taste it... But I have to buy it first lol. I'm not really too sure what I'm looking at when I pick specimens to purchase. Any tips? I've got a few pedros at the moment, so I'd prefer to buy from the other species. Cheers for the quick reply.

Damn trichocereus taxonomy is so confusing.

While I've made a thread, can anyone confirm if this is the PC pachanoi:

Definitely a Trichocereus scopulicola.
it looks like it might be getting a little too much light.

I am very curious as to how people can tell what is what, esp to the trichocereus cacti. As far as I know the descriptions are very vague, I have had a good look at Trout's book and webpage but I wasn't too convinced. But on the other hand I am not a specialist at recognising cacti.

We tried to set a thread to gather information on reliable criteria as to what makes a cactus a PC, non PC peruvianus, cuzco, scopu etc etc but we never came up with something good (it was often something like "experience" stemming from seeing many pictures over the internet that apparently gave the a "feeling" of what is what", or rubbish in my opinion).

I'd really like (I should actually say MANDATORY!! ) if people could say "This is definitely the (x, y, z) cactus because it has this (....and this and that..) characteristics which are not found in the other (close related) species...."

Actually since in the Nexus we tend not only to question many of the statements made, but also to further question, I'll start the other way around and I'll evoke the null hypothesis: Neither ouro nor or nn-dmt know what they're talking about, if you think otherwise please show me that you know what you're talking about!

Fair enough, infundibulum... The easiest way to see that pach isnt PC is from the tip. That plant has strong V shaped indentations above the areols which often makes the tip look very knobby before the areoles spread apart as the tip grows. There are a lot of subtle signs also: It looks like the lower spines have grown longer, which I notice on some of my non PC pachs. The lower spines sometimes grow to 5-6 cm but I've never seen PC spines grow out in that manner. The coloration also looks different to me, much darker green, especially since the plant seems to be getting a lot of light. The problem with trying to make a scientific checklist relating trich growth for species id is that almost all of those factors will change dramatically with different growing conditions, so intuition must be used. growing plants and staring at them for hours is the best training imo

Well, to be honest, I don't think the issue of names is important whatsoever. What I think should happen however, is photos of each cactus taken directly before they're harvested, and then a quantitative measure of mescaline content (poor extractions disregarded) plus a qualitative report written accurately. Enough of these, and then hopefully a complex pattern will emerge as to which cactuses do what. That way the taxonomy issues can be settled behind our back, while we've sorted out the best cactuses already (there will always be poorly grown specimens, but a better chance of good genetics by judging characteristics is better than nothing). That's what I'll do for my extractions.

Thanks for your help everyone. Very disappointed that the second picture is of a scop. If I'd known that ages ago... It wouldn't have got half the care it did. I thought it was a pachanoi.
But things such as few ribs, ribs not being indented deeply and ribs starting above soil-level are all signs that I've seen on more genetically pure scops. Although, I have read that true scops have no spines. Well, this one has spines... So, I don't know. I'll probably eat it all the same and find out for sure whether it's a space-waster.

I also think that the whole "judge by eye" isn't as unscientific as you're worried it is, Infundibulum. I think that a competent grower would be able to see the signs, but not necessarily say what they are. I would surely trust a curandero to pick the correct species for me, but I'm sure he wouldn't be able to tell me why he picked it - other than the plant spirits told him.

Thanks!

But the second cactus in the first does not have these V dentations that make the tip look knobby, so what makes it a non PC? It also has no spines to make any statement about its spine length....

But thanks again for the info, I still however do not get the "intuition" thing too much, you may be able to tell about your cacti but doesn't applying intuition to an internet photo just make the guess a few more steps more unreliable? Is there a chance that this phenotype may be the environmental effect on a PC pachanoi?

Or maybe we should start adding a guesstimate on the prediction, e.g. "this is a non-PC with a 80-90% confidence"?

I have had a detailed look on the second cactus, and I can confirm there are seagull-style V indentations above the spines on the new growth. Here's the macro photos to see for yourselves. So basically, I think there is some pachanoi genes in there at least. Asture viewers will notice the cactus has been repotted.








And these cacti here, I take it are true pachanoi:

sorry for the late reply. I will do my best to compare a Scopulicola with a PC-Pedro.

The most obvious scopulicoloid characteristic is the angle between the ribs. Look at a cross-section of a PC Pedro vs a scopulicola. The edges of the scopulicola cross section are very broad and flat while the Pedro's edges are much more curved and have very defined corners in between each rib. Notice how the angles between the pedro's ribs become more and more acute as you approach the corner; the scopulicola does not do this. this characteristic does NOT change because of the environment. The only time I have ever seen a cactus change in this way was when I tried feeding a cactus with a hydroponic fertilizer high in nitrogen.

Look at the color of the fuzz of the aereoles. it is brown on a scop, white on a pedro. The spines on a PC pedro face upwards, whereas on a scopulicola point in all directions.

T. scopulicola can reach stem diameter that far exceeds that of a Pedro.

T. scopulicola does not branch out at the base like Pedro.

T. scopulicola is more often than not completely spineless. [see p.214 in trouts newest book]

personally, I think T. scopulicola is actually a hybrid between Pachanoi and bridgesii. The color of the fuzz on the aereoles and the direction the spines face strongly suggest bridgesoid genetics. the number of spines, spine color, length between aereoles all suggest pachanoid genetics. Scopulicola grows in the same type of environment as bridgesii. In short, a scopulicola is a puffy Pedro with other less obvious differences.

"I am of the belief that something is what it is and it doesn't matter what you call it because it is."

i disagree, looks like a pach