Unusual Copiapoa
Forum rules
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
- Peter
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 2646
- https://www.behance.net/kuchnie-warszawa
- Joined: 22 Mar 2007
- Branch: None
- Country: UK
- Location: Cornwall
Unusual Copiapoa
I'm in the throes of a massive Copiapoa potting-on and came across this Copiapoa serpentisulcata v castanea KK1866, originating from Alan Craig. It's nothing like my other serpentisulcatas and I'm interested to find out if anyone has a mature plant (i.e. older than the 30-40 years old plant in the pic).
Last edited by Peter on Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Unusual Copiapoa
nice collection Peter
serpentisulcata is flatter than your plant
haseltoniana or a similar specy ?
serpentisulcata is flatter than your plant
haseltoniana or a similar specy ?
Re: Unusual Copiapoa
Hi.
I’ve never had the v. castenea, which is a Ritter name, but Knize could have mixed up seed for that one with just about anything. Yours looks nothing like serpentisulcata, and I doubt a variety status would be so off form.
The thing that most looks like is a yellow spined rupestris. I had a few come out of a seed lot from Kohres that I find really beautiful. Reddish flowers would be the tell.
You’re growing yours hard so no pups are on it.
40 years though. Wouldn’t be surprised if it was in the cinerea group, probably v. albaspina.
Now I’m just guessing. Oh the fun of rooting through the copiapoa legacy collection!
I’ve never had the v. castenea, which is a Ritter name, but Knize could have mixed up seed for that one with just about anything. Yours looks nothing like serpentisulcata, and I doubt a variety status would be so off form.
The thing that most looks like is a yellow spined rupestris. I had a few come out of a seed lot from Kohres that I find really beautiful. Reddish flowers would be the tell.
You’re growing yours hard so no pups are on it.
40 years though. Wouldn’t be surprised if it was in the cinerea group, probably v. albaspina.
Now I’m just guessing. Oh the fun of rooting through the copiapoa legacy collection!
- Phil_SK
- Moderator
- Posts: 5448
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: MACCLESFIELD & EAST CHESHIRE
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Forum Moderator
- Location: Stockport, UK
Re: Unusual Copiapoa
Ritter does illustrate his plant: https://www.cactuspro.com/lecture/Ritte ... 60.en.html and says that a Backeberg illustration is it, too: https://www.cactuspro.com/lecture/Backe ... 85.en.html
Graham Charles, in his Cactus File Handbook, says that "C. serpentisulcata is also reported from the hills [...] This higher population is probably Ritter's type locality for the species, with his [...] var castanea growing near to the sea." so I don't think you'd expect there to be much of a difference between them.
Having seen the photo of it snuggled up with C. cinerascens, I wondered if it might be a serpentisulcata x cinerascens hybrid, but GC says that he "saw no individuals which I considered to be hybrids between the two".
Graham Charles, in his Cactus File Handbook, says that "C. serpentisulcata is also reported from the hills [...] This higher population is probably Ritter's type locality for the species, with his [...] var castanea growing near to the sea." so I don't think you'd expect there to be much of a difference between them.
Having seen the photo of it snuggled up with C. cinerascens, I wondered if it might be a serpentisulcata x cinerascens hybrid, but GC says that he "saw no individuals which I considered to be hybrids between the two".
Phil Crewe, BCSS 38143. Mostly S. American cacti, esp. Lobivia, Sulcorebutia and little Opuntia
Re: Unusual Copiapoa
Thanks for your impressive research work Phil and also to Richaud and Dennis for your input.
Referring to my plant (posted above), it's not C.haseltoniana or C.gigantea - I have a number of these and a major difference between these and my plant is the ribs. Very different. although there seems to be no apparent connection between C.serpentisulcata and my plant, I feel it difficult to overlook the fact that Alan Craig must have accepted it and the label will go back into that pot.
Dennis mentioned C.ruprestris - however I have just one of these (barring a clump of the C.desertorum subspecies) but my one plant is somewhere in the chaos that is my greenhouse during the course of a major repot! They're difficult to get here - and I can't just now find the one that I've got!
Interesting that C.cinerascens was mentioned. Below is a pic showing Ken Preston- Mafham's refs PM120b and 120c, plants from south and east respectively of Pan de Azucar. Different spination - would Knize called them different species? Ritter's mention of C.serpentisulcata must have some relevance. Richaud rightly says that they are flatter plants but again there's spination variation. Ritter also named C.chanaralensis in the extract and its a species he accepted. The following pic is of a plant sold by Bryan Goodey of Cactusworld (Southfield nursery) as C.Chararensis - maybe a basic spelling error. Following the original thread title of Unusual Copiapoa, here follows a pic of C.ferox. This has previously been discussed in this forum. It's a somewhat contentious species. Some say that it's a subspecies of C.solaris, growing as it does, adjacent to solaris. It's a slow growing, sturdy thing, hopefully making a nice plant in the far future. Finally, here's a pic of a speedy growing 'C.spec' as labelled. However, I reckon that it is a hybrid between C.cinerea and the stiff spined form of C.krainziana.
Referring to my plant (posted above), it's not C.haseltoniana or C.gigantea - I have a number of these and a major difference between these and my plant is the ribs. Very different. although there seems to be no apparent connection between C.serpentisulcata and my plant, I feel it difficult to overlook the fact that Alan Craig must have accepted it and the label will go back into that pot.
Dennis mentioned C.ruprestris - however I have just one of these (barring a clump of the C.desertorum subspecies) but my one plant is somewhere in the chaos that is my greenhouse during the course of a major repot! They're difficult to get here - and I can't just now find the one that I've got!
Interesting that C.cinerascens was mentioned. Below is a pic showing Ken Preston- Mafham's refs PM120b and 120c, plants from south and east respectively of Pan de Azucar. Different spination - would Knize called them different species? Ritter's mention of C.serpentisulcata must have some relevance. Richaud rightly says that they are flatter plants but again there's spination variation. Ritter also named C.chanaralensis in the extract and its a species he accepted. The following pic is of a plant sold by Bryan Goodey of Cactusworld (Southfield nursery) as C.Chararensis - maybe a basic spelling error. Following the original thread title of Unusual Copiapoa, here follows a pic of C.ferox. This has previously been discussed in this forum. It's a somewhat contentious species. Some say that it's a subspecies of C.solaris, growing as it does, adjacent to solaris. It's a slow growing, sturdy thing, hopefully making a nice plant in the far future. Finally, here's a pic of a speedy growing 'C.spec' as labelled. However, I reckon that it is a hybrid between C.cinerea and the stiff spined form of C.krainziana.
Re: Unusual Copiapoa
That’s a whole line up of great looking Copiapoas.
Your subject plant looks aligned with some of your comparison plants- enough to drive around in circles! It’s nice to see a different larger form of serpentisulcata as you’ve shown. I have clumps of the small form.
I apparently missed out on the C. ferox discussion but that is 100% a C. longistaminea. My examples are KK n.n. uhligiana and the very lovely n.n. tigrillensis with redder spines. I ditched photobucket or I’d share for comparison.
(And yes, tigrillensis is another problematic name with a few unrelated things repeatedly being tagged as such, but that’s the way it is!)
Your subject plant looks aligned with some of your comparison plants- enough to drive around in circles! It’s nice to see a different larger form of serpentisulcata as you’ve shown. I have clumps of the small form.
I apparently missed out on the C. ferox discussion but that is 100% a C. longistaminea. My examples are KK n.n. uhligiana and the very lovely n.n. tigrillensis with redder spines. I ditched photobucket or I’d share for comparison.
(And yes, tigrillensis is another problematic name with a few unrelated things repeatedly being tagged as such, but that’s the way it is!)