From Backebergs Trichocereus Lexicon, T. lamprochlonns (Lem.) Backbg. n.comb. (Cereus Iamprochlorus Lem., Cact. Aliqu. Nov., 30. 1838, non T. lamprochlorus sensu Britton & Rose) (1).
acc, the original diagnosis: “Ri. 15; Sp. stiff, sharp, ± reddish-brown, translucent yellow when young, brown-tipped; Rsp. 12—15, 6—9 mm long.; Csp. 4, cruciform, longer, stouter, lowest one downcurving, 2.7—3 cm long.; Fl. and Fr. not known”.—Bolivia (acc. Rumpler).
Obviously this plant has been confused with T. neolamprochlorus since the time of Salm-Dyck, hence my repeating the description below. Britton and Rose recognised that more than one spec. was involved. In the Botanical Garden at “Les Cedres”, I saw the true spec., which has a conspicuously glossy green epidermis (hence the name “lamprochorus”):
Ba. erect, as robust as T. spachianus, glossy intense green; Ri. rounded, c. 11—12 at first; Rsp. 7 at first, later more numerous; Csp. 1 at first, later 4, cruciform; Sp. yellow below at first, brown above, later light-coloured; Fl. 15.5 cm long., 12—14cm 25, white; Sep. narrow, olive-brown; Pet, broader; Sti. 2 cm long., yellowish-greenish; Tu. with greyishbrown H.—E. Bolivia (precise locality not known). (Fig. 438.)
The spec. regarded here as the true T. lamprochlorus, which was found by Cardenas and probably also by Ritter, is glossy intense green, with rounded Ri. The Sp. are fewer in number at first, and only 1 Csp. is present. Later the spine-count of the original description is attained, and the Csp. are cruciform. The flowering plant shown in Fig. 1084, in “Die Cact.”, II, p. 1127, is another spec., sometimes held to be identical with T. lamprochlorus but in fact differing strongly from it (see also under T. grandiflorus Backbg. n.sp.).
I got my cut from Fields Cactus farm. My cutting was placed in a shady spot to root, and luckily an undeveloped flower came through. Really beautiful. The difference in the unpoened flowers from the 1st pics of the mother clump grown in full sun out at Fields, to the one on my cut in full shade is very interesting. Nice little cactus :)
acc, the original diagnosis: “Ri. 15; Sp. stiff, sharp, ± reddish-brown, translucent yellow when young, brown-tipped; Rsp. 12—15, 6—9 mm long.; Csp. 4, cruciform, longer, stouter, lowest one downcurving, 2.7—3 cm long.; Fl. and Fr. not known”.—Bolivia (acc. Rumpler).
Obviously this plant has been confused with T. neolamprochlorus since the time of Salm-Dyck, hence my repeating the description below. Britton and Rose recognised that more than one spec. was involved. In the Botanical Garden at “Les Cedres”, I saw the true spec., which has a conspicuously glossy green epidermis (hence the name “lamprochorus”):
Ba. erect, as robust as T. spachianus, glossy intense green; Ri. rounded, c. 11—12 at first; Rsp. 7 at first, later more numerous; Csp. 1 at first, later 4, cruciform; Sp. yellow below at first, brown above, later light-coloured; Fl. 15.5 cm long., 12—14cm 25, white; Sep. narrow, olive-brown; Pet, broader; Sti. 2 cm long., yellowish-greenish; Tu. with greyishbrown H.—E. Bolivia (precise locality not known). (Fig. 438.)
The spec. regarded here as the true T. lamprochlorus, which was found by Cardenas and probably also by Ritter, is glossy intense green, with rounded Ri. The Sp. are fewer in number at first, and only 1 Csp. is present. Later the spine-count of the original description is attained, and the Csp. are cruciform. The flowering plant shown in Fig. 1084, in “Die Cact.”, II, p. 1127, is another spec., sometimes held to be identical with T. lamprochlorus but in fact differing strongly from it (see also under T. grandiflorus Backbg. n.sp.).
I got my cut from Fields Cactus farm. My cutting was placed in a shady spot to root, and luckily an undeveloped flower came through. Really beautiful. The difference in the unpoened flowers from the 1st pics of the mother clump grown in full sun out at Fields, to the one on my cut in full shade is very interesting. Nice little cactus :)
No comments:
Post a Comment