'some' new plants - even more new plants!
'some' new plants - even more new plants!
I went to a convention today here in the netherlands and came home with these:
cintia knizei echinocereus knippelianus echinocereus palmeri echinocereus rigidissimus echinocereus scheerii ssp. gentryi echinopsis chamaecereus cv. albiflora echinopsis sp. LB2515 gymnocalicium andreae ssp. matznetteri WR567 gymnocalicium calochlorum var. proliferum LB979 gymnocalicium cardenasianum gymnocalicium papschii HV671 gymnocalicium ragonesei islaya maritima, grafted islaya paucispina var. glaucescens, also grafted neochilenia occulta oroya peruviana pyrrhocactus umadeave var. marayensis, grafted sulcorebutia breviflora var. albispina sulcorebutia menesesii sulcorebutia sp. la-villa
cintia knizei echinocereus knippelianus echinocereus palmeri echinocereus rigidissimus echinocereus scheerii ssp. gentryi echinopsis chamaecereus cv. albiflora echinopsis sp. LB2515 gymnocalicium andreae ssp. matznetteri WR567 gymnocalicium calochlorum var. proliferum LB979 gymnocalicium cardenasianum gymnocalicium papschii HV671 gymnocalicium ragonesei islaya maritima, grafted islaya paucispina var. glaucescens, also grafted neochilenia occulta oroya peruviana pyrrhocactus umadeave var. marayensis, grafted sulcorebutia breviflora var. albispina sulcorebutia menesesii sulcorebutia sp. la-villa
Last edited by Arjen on Mon May 21, 2012 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
With apologies to the late Professor C. D. Darlington the following misquotation springs to
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
Re: 'some' new plants
Very very nice haul!
My favorites -
cintia knizei
gymnocalicium cardenasianum - I just love everything about this one, the smooth surface and the spines, just fantastic looking imo.
gymnocalicium ragonesei
neochilenia occulta
My favorites -
cintia knizei
gymnocalicium cardenasianum - I just love everything about this one, the smooth surface and the spines, just fantastic looking imo.
gymnocalicium ragonesei
neochilenia occulta
Sharpy (Doug)
Just say NO to glochids!
Just say NO to glochids!
- Steve Johnson
- Posts: 4531
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:44 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA (Zone 10b)
Re: 'some' new plants
Hard to pick any favorites, because they're all great! I'm green with cactus envy!! I haven't tried a Cintia before, although it would be interesting to see if I can find any here in the US. Since they tend to burst due to overwatering, what would you suggest for watering frequency in the growing season?
If you just want photos without all the blather, please visit my Flickr gallery.
My location: Los Angeles, CA (Zone 10b)
My location: Los Angeles, CA (Zone 10b)
-
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:53 pm
- Location: SE Wales z9
Re: 'some' new plants
Very nice haul.
It looks a lot like an E. horizonthalonius. Much longer spines and they come in a different colour, but the skin colour and body shape are similar. Something to add to the wishlist!Sharpy wrote: gymnocalicium cardenasianum - I just love everything about this one, the smooth surface and the spines, just fantastic looking imo.
- CoronaCactus
- Posts: 10421
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 6:16 pm
- Location: Corona, California USA [Zone 10]
- Contact:
Re: 'some' new plants
Goin' big!
and more Echinocereus
and more Echinocereus
- Peterthecactusguy
- Posts: 8862
- Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:49 am
- Location: Black Canyon City, Arizona
Re: 'some' new plants
heh nice Arjen.
Here's to you, all you insidious creatures of green..er I mean cacti.
- CactusFanDan
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:33 pm
- Location: Manchester, England
- Contact:
Re: 'some' new plants
Excellent!!! Some lovely Chileans in there! I'm very jealous.
- JeffWhiteDevil
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:37 am
- Location: Northern Illinois
Re: 'some' new plants
That is a really nice N. occulta.
I see Cintia offered on eBay in the USA all the time.Steve Johnson wrote:I haven't tried a Cintia before, although it would be interesting to see if I can find any here in the US.
Re: 'some' new plants
thanks for all the kind comments
steve, I have no experience with these (yet) but I would say give them a mineral draining soil and water very sparingly, that is what I intent to do
darryl, yes after your last comment on facebook I just had to get myself some more echinocereus balance is on the way!
seriously, I just love echinocereus and have quite a few but it's a relatively new fascination, sulcorebutia/weingartia is too but they flower more easily...
steve, I have no experience with these (yet) but I would say give them a mineral draining soil and water very sparingly, that is what I intent to do
darryl, yes after your last comment on facebook I just had to get myself some more echinocereus balance is on the way!
seriously, I just love echinocereus and have quite a few but it's a relatively new fascination, sulcorebutia/weingartia is too but they flower more easily...
With apologies to the late Professor C. D. Darlington the following misquotation springs to
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
Re: 'some' new plants
The Pyrrhocactus is very straightforward. Shame it is grafted because it grows fine on its own roots and develops better spination. Despite the name on the label, it is Eriosyce bulbocalyx var marayensis. Mature plants have spines very similar to E. umadeave. Hot summers, water regularly, cold dry winters. No peat
--ian
Re: 'some' new plants
thanks iann! I was already considering degrafting it, now I'm going to put that on my to-do list, do they root easily?
about the name, I am aware of current nomenclature but especially within eriosyce I find that it makes the plant care easier when I split the genus within my collection. opinion on wether it should have been lumped in the first place is an entirely different matter, I can however say that I am more a supporter of splitting than of lumping, to me this is a pyrrhocactus. so... would THAT make it umadeave or bulbocalyx?
about the name, I am aware of current nomenclature but especially within eriosyce I find that it makes the plant care easier when I split the genus within my collection. opinion on wether it should have been lumped in the first place is an entirely different matter, I can however say that I am more a supporter of splitting than of lumping, to me this is a pyrrhocactus. so... would THAT make it umadeave or bulbocalyx?
With apologies to the late Professor C. D. Darlington the following misquotation springs to
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
Re: 'some' new plants
I'd be wary. Some of these larger Eriosyce don't put out roots easily. Or at all! I've never tried to root E. bulbocalyx ... because they never lose their rootsStrUktO wrote:thanks iann! I was already considering degrafting it, now I'm going to put that on my to-do list, do they root easily?
Whatever you want to call it, you shouldn't have "umadeave" in the name. The person that called it "umadeave" was one of those "it's got spines so we'll call it a cactus" people The flowers are different enough, if you're a botanist, and there's certainly no confusing the fruit.StrUktO wrote:about the name, I am aware of current nomenclature but especially within eriosyce I find that it makes the plant care easier when I split the genus within my collection. opinion on wether it should have been lumped in the first place is an entirely different matter, I can however say that I am more a supporter of splitting than of lumping, to me this is a pyrrhocactus. so... would THAT make it umadeave or bulbocalyx?
If you want to split, you could call it Pyrrhocactus marayensis That is unfortunately an invalid name (although there is some thought that it was corrected in a later edition?), but then so is P. umadeave var marayensis so you're stuck if you want to use that name.
--ian
Re: 'some' new plants
when I looked up e. bulbocalyx on the guide one of the synonyms was p. bulbocalyx, adding the marayensis to that would come closer, yes?
I think I will leave it grafted and try to root one of the pups
I think I will leave it grafted and try to root one of the pups
With apologies to the late Professor C. D. Darlington the following misquotation springs to
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
mind ‘cactus taxonomy is the pursuit of the impossible by the incompetent’ - Fearn & Pearcy, Rebutia (1981)
Re: 'some' new plants
I don't get it. What are you trying to get closer to? I have to correct the spelling. It should be "marayesensis", found at Marayes in Argentina.StrUktO wrote:when I looked up e. bulbocalyx on the guide one of the synonyms was p. bulbocalyx, adding the marayensis to that would come closer, yes?
The only definitely positively valid name with this word in it is Pyrrhocactus umadeave var marayesensis. Unfortunately this plant simply isn't the same species as Pyrrhocactus umadeave so I think you should throw out that name. There is a Neoporteria umadeave and possibly N. umadeave var marayesensis, but even if valid that name is even more misleading so ignore that too.
Then there is Pyrrhocactus marayesensis, possibly invalid but at least published and not misleading. To this day some people would prefer to keep this plant as a separate species because the general appearance is so different from E. bulbocalyx. However it is worth bearing in mind that this is merely one form selected out of a very varied population which includes plants just like E. bulbocalyx from any other location as well as a number of different flower colours, body colours, and types of spines. Before you get any ideas about them being hybrids, this is hundred of miles from where E. umadeave is found.
The NCL would include your plant as E. bulbocalyx but then it doesn't list varieties anyway. So far as I can see E. bulbocalyx var marayesensis and E. bulbocalyx var marayesensis have never been published so I wouldn't be a fan of putting those on the label. My seeds came labelled as Eriosyce bulbocalyx "marayensis" (sic!) FK709, and that is as good a name as any. Or Pyrrhocactus bulbocalyx "marayesensis" if you want to split. I think the seedlings look every bit like other E. bulbocalyx seedlings and not like E. umadeave. I don't have a photo of E. umadeave at exactly the same size but here is one just a bit older.
Pyrrhocactus don't do pups! Maybe it will on a graft.StrUktO wrote:I think I will leave it grafted and try to root one of the pups
--ian