Chamaecereus

[Phil_SK]

I've been having a bit of a Chamaecereus day today, prompted by some coincident flowers. So often overlooked, my C. silvestrii has been receiving good treatment for a few years now, in an over-sized pot. It has managed to grow through all the mite-bitten bits and is keeping a reasonably tight shape. It's never awash with flowers but those that it does produce are still beautiful.

A few years ago, I spotted seed for sale in two different lists, which is unusual due nearly all of the plants in cultivation being clones. I thought I'd give them both a try, as it's such a favourite of mine. This first one came from Succseed and was billed as "cult. x DH 310b". There are two seedlings in this pot and although only one is in flower today both have flowered and the flowers are pretty close to the standard clone.

The other came from ADBLPS without any clues as to its origin but the claim that it was indeed "non hybride". Again, two seedlings in this pot, both with similar (to each other) somewhat narrow-petalled flowers. Is it non-hybride? Not toally convinced.

[rodsmith]

The plants look identical. Interesting differences in the petals.

[Phil_SK]

I shared a photo of the flower of my Chamaecereus silvestrii f. crassicaulis cristata last month. Here it is again, with a more regular flower, next to the normal form. The flowers are consistently bigger.

The stems are fairly thick to begin with but then become fasciated over time, if they continue growing for long enough.

In my hands, these end up getting attacked by mites and coming to a halt. Must try harder!

[Phil_SK]

Long regarded as a close relative of C. silvestrii is C. saltensis (aka Lobivia saltensis and Echinopsis saltensis ssp saltensis). Here are ZJ 213 (two pics), MU351 'multicostata' (Rausch's first description, as L. saltensis v. multicostata claims the plant "Differt a typo costis plurioribus"... well, not so far it doesn't) and a s.n. form that's supposed to have long spines. This last one didn't want to play along and isn't in flower today, though two of the plants bear buds.

ZJ213

ZJ213

MU351 multicostata

SantaBarbara

[Terry S.]

It is generally thought that most of the Chamaecereus sylvestrii (sorry, I'll persist with that old name) that we have in cultivation is a single clone. Its origins are lost in the mists of time but it is fairly hardy and survived WWII in spite of the lack of heating for ornamentals. However a more recent collection was made by Dieter Herzog, an Argentinian cactus enthusiast, in the Sierra Calchaques that is also claimed to be this species. One of the parents of the seedlings shown above has a DH number and it will be this material:

You can probably see from the photograph that the flowers are very similar but the stems are about twice the size of the ancient garden clone in terms of height and diameter. Also note that it is just as prone to red spider attack as the old clone.

There a several UK authorities on South American cacti and if one talks to them about the Herzog plant they tend to express doubts about it and suggest that it is a hybrid. However, with my relative lack of knowledge of cacti from the region, I see no reason to doubt Herzog's claim. My plant of this clone is directly traceable back to Herzog.

[Phil_SK]

Regretably, Herzog's plant, like the original version, is of somewhat obscure origin: it was collected for him rather than directly by him. Eberhard Scholz found a plant that looks like the common form growing in a cemetery but on crossing different clones from there produced thicker stemmed plants, like the Herzog plant.

[Phil_SK]

Another C. saltensis that didn't want to flower on Sunday was this one, 'zapallarensis' TB382.1.
It has more spines, shorter spines and they sit flatter against the plant, so far.
Like quite a number of my plants it's in a special rhombus-shaped pot.

[Keith H]

An interesting thread thank you Phil.
Another one of those plants that I had many years ago as a youngster growing pocket money plants, sadly long departed but one that I would happily re acquire should I come across one of the original clones.

[Phil_SK]

The Santa Barbara plant flowered today; nothing special, really.

saltensis SantaBarbara

[Phil_SK]

A couple of forms of C. schreiteri have been in flower, though I only caught this first one as it was going a bit raggedy. Under Echinopsis, the NCL had it as a subspecies of E. saltensis but in Chamaecereus the only combination is at species level.

TB425.1 Ch. schreiteri

TB674.1 Ch. schreiteri riolarensis