Page 1 of 3
Copiapoa
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:22 pm
by CoronaCactus
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:26 pm
by poobar
wow!
you have a beautiful cactus collection and many beautiful and healthy looking cacti! Keep up the good work.
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:59 pm
by john b
Darryl,
All I can say is WOW! Great plants!
I have very few copiapoa, but can see how they could become addicitng.
Best,
John B
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:10 pm
by hablu
Very nice.
TFS.
Harry
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:24 pm
by masscactus
Very nice! Copiapoa and Gymno's are tops for me.
Copiapoa strike me as "other world-ly" - they have an alien quality to them, especially in habitat. Some of the pics I have seen are just stunning. I am a bit leery about caring for them though and have been slow to acquire.
Bryan
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:30 pm
by CoronaCactus
Thanks guys!
Happy to share, glad you enjoy
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:16 pm
by daiv
Bryan,
I totally agree with you on the Copiapoa habitat shots. Very different from our daily experience. I would encourage you to go with the Genus however. In my experience, they are not difficult to care for. I haven't lost one yet, despite the abuse they've received from me.
Darryl,
Loving your post here. Fun to compare all the different ones side by side like that.
Daiv
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:25 pm
by iann
Oh dear, contradicting Copiapoa names is somewhat more dangerous than lion taming, but here goes ...
First two seem believable
C. coquimbana is an incredibly variable species, but one thing they all have in common is fairly stout spines. I think this is C. humilis. One sure way to separate them is that C. humilis will have big fleshy roots, all C. coquimbana have a fairly standard fibrous root system
Not much doubting the rest up to C. dealbata. I'll take two, btw
Actually, I have over a dozen C. dealbata but nothing like this!
C. tigrillensis is just a name applied to the collection numbers KK1385 and KK1386, nothing more and nothing less, collected near Tigrillo obviously. It is generally considered to be a form of C. longistaminea and to be frank your plant looks nothing like C. longistaminea.
C. marginata might be right, little ones can look like before the tubercles merge into ribs.
You're right about C. tenuissima, nothing like that, but it does seem to be some kind of C. humilis.
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:32 pm
by daiv
iann wrote:
Not much doubting the rest up to C. dealbata. I'll take two, btw
Actually, I have over a dozen C. dealbata but nothing like this!
You don't say what it is. If not C. dealbata, I'm going to guess it is probably C. cinerea? No?
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:46 pm
by CoronaCactus
Thanks Daiv.
Thanks Ian. I was waiting for your reply
I have some on the sales racks named Copiapoa sp. 'Trigillo' of which i assume would fall under the tigrillensis name...they look very much like the one i posted. I agree, looks nothing like longistaminea!
Forgot to add my comments on the coquimbana...I also think it looks humilis like, but wasn't sure. Does coquimbana pup alot in cultivation? This one has a dozen or more new pups all over it. Not just around the base, but all over.
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:51 pm
by CoronaCactus
daiv wrote:iann wrote:
Not much doubting the rest up to C. dealbata. I'll take two, btw
Actually, I have over a dozen C. dealbata but nothing like this!
You don't say what it is. If not C. dealbata, I'm going to guess it is probably C. cinerea? No?
hrmmm
According to the handbook, delbata is a variety of cinerea. Actaully, there are alot of varieties. esmaraldana is a var. of humilis, laui a var. of hypogaea, krainziana is a var. of cinerea...
I find it interesting that these plants are all realated, but no reports of hybrids (or very few)
BTW, i'm not saying the handbook is the gospel on these, it's just the only Copiapoa book i have at hand. I've already tore a bit of the binding, flipping through it non-stop for a week
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:10 pm
by iann
No, I meant the C. dealbata looks spot on, but mine tiny babies are nothing in comparison. Opinion is divided on whether it is quite close enough to C. cinerea to be just a variety. It is currently surviving as a separate species after 20 years or so sunk under C. cinerea. One distinguishing feature is that it forms large clumps.
There are certainly hybrids between some of these related forms. C. cinerea and C. krainziana have a range of intermediate forms in habitat. I have one which has stiff white spines on a C. cinerea body. I thought I had a photo but can't find one.
One feature of Copiapoa subspecies is that they are nearly always widely separated. Close together they appear to form variable hybrid swarms and they seem to have had enough time to do it that obvious isolated hybrids are rare.
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:51 pm
by masscactus
Well I do have a few to add
I purchased these seedlings recently. FK1105 has me confused as Ralph Martin has it as grandiflora ssp. hornilloensis but it was tagged as taltalensis.
C. echinata (v. borealis?) FK527
C . esmeraldana FK1052
C. taltalensis FK1105
Bryan
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:00 pm
by Bill in SC
Splendid display of Copiapoa! You guy's knowledge is astounding!!!
Bill in SC
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:14 pm
by CoronaCactus
Great looking seedlings Bryan.
Thanks Bill.