My Chilean Cacti Collection 2009/2010

Christer Johansson · Post by **Christer Johansson** » Sat May 09, 2009 6:06 am

So, I've got a few E. occulta already, but none with field number

Something to compare with later on...

Eriosyce occulta JA 81
Florencia Senoret, Juan P. Acosta (Spiniflores)
Las Breas, Taltal, 02 Antofagasta, Chile
Habitat pictures

5 cm (2") clay pot

Roots

[cm/mm]

Christer Johansson · Post by **Christer Johansson** » Sat May 09, 2009 2:08 pm

First flower

Eriosyce heinrichiana (Backeb.) Katt. 1994
Pyrrhocactus dimorphus F.Ritter 1962
Neochilenia dimorpha (F.Ritter) Backeb. 1963
Neoporteria dimorpha (F.Ritter) Donald & G.D.Rowley 1966

Christer Johansson · Post by **Christer Johansson** » Sat May 09, 2009 5:54 pm

CelticRose · Post by **CelticRose** » Sat May 09, 2009 8:40 pm

Nice flower!

Unusual color.

iann · Post by **iann** » Sat May 09, 2009 8:51 pm

Its amazing how some of these flower so early.

The E. occulta looks slightly odd to me.

iann · Post by **iann** » Sat May 09, 2009 10:59 pm

OK, here's a thought. Could you have the E. occulta and the E. heinrichiana switched?

Christer Johansson · Post by **Christer Johansson** » Sun May 10, 2009 4:38 am

iann wrote:Its amazing how some of these flower so early.

Yes, I was expecting to wait for years

The E. occulta looks slightly odd to me.

If you refer to the E. occulta JA 81 and the roots?

iann wrote:OK, here's a thought. Could you have the E. occulta and the E. heinrichiana switched?

Those two was labeled as I label them and they came from two different suppliers. First shipment I've got 3 E. occulta and 1 dimorpha, maybe the supplier switched some and I got 4 E. occulta? Last shipment I got only 1 E. occulta and none E. heinrichiana from SuccSeed and he has no E. heinrichiana for sale, except the Eriosyce "heinrichiana" v. simulans FK 82 that have the same type of roots and bigger spines?

Christer Johansson · Post by **Christer Johansson** » Sun May 10, 2009 10:48 am

Now I've started the E. umadeave experiment.

I have the seeds that I recived from SuccSeed. And the label says:

Eriosyce umadeave MPL 6.1 (Puerta Tastil, Salta, Arg)

I've ordered 2 package and that should bee 40 seeds, but I got 41 seeds

Yes, it's not 41 in the picture, but that's a digital zoom image.

I will test 4 different treatments for this seeds.
1. Like I usually do; in a pot with sterile soil and in a plastic bag. The bag placed on the windowsill away from the sun.
2. In a petri dish with cold boiled water just cover the seeds, and placed on the windowsill away from the sun.
3. Store some dry seeds in the fridge for a wile.
4. In a petri dish with cold boiled water just cover the seeds, placed in the fridge at night and in the germinator over the day.

The result will be placed here over the time...

iann · Post by **iann** » Sun May 10, 2009 11:21 am

The roots were the first thing that looked odd about the E. occulta. This species has a classic fat taproot, a simple extension of the body tapering and sprouting a few fine roots. This is apparent even on quite small seedlings, but not on your plant.

Then I looked at the body and I can't say it isn't E. occulta but it looks slightly unusual. E. occulta has distinctive shaped tubercles with narrow sunken areoles, more like your E. heinrichiana than your E. occulta. Maybe they will develop with maturity. E. heinrichiana is described as becomeing larger, having more ribs, and longer spines, but not so much that it is easy to distinguish. Differences between the flowers and fruit are minor. A really pink flower would be E. heinrichiana, but a really pale one could be either.

I can't say for sure, these things are so variable even when the seed comes straight from habitat. Just something to think about when they're older.

iann · Post by **iann** » Sun May 10, 2009 11:28 am

You might have read my results with E. umadeave. My seed was MPL9.1, I think collected at the same time but from a slightly different location. Both collections are definitely viable. I don't know whether collections are often just dead seed, but the common report is that the species is impossible to germinate. Seed from cultivation is rare.

I had some difficulty getting my seed to germinate. Standard treatment gave me nothing, although E. vertongenii germinated 100% in the same conditions. Phil Crewe germinated his seed quite well with no special treatment. I eventually chipped all the seeds and got about half to germinate. Several of those didn't develop, either I damaged them or they simply weren't ready to grow.

The seedlings are now strong and growing spines. They are likely to be prone to losing their roots for the first few years and they don't recover well from this or any other kind of root disturbance. Mine are all in separate pots and I won't touch them for at least a couple of years.

Christer Johansson · Post by **Christer Johansson** » Sun May 10, 2009 8:24 pm

iann wrote:The roots were the first thing that looked odd about the E. occulta. This species has a classic fat taproot, a simple extension of the body tapering and sprouting a few fine roots. This is apparent even on quite small seedlings, but not on your plant.

Could the fat taproot split up into two taproots?

Another thing that my so called occulta have in common are that they have a epidermis that's not shiny (more like velvet), but the "heinrichiana" have a very shiny epidermis?

Christer Johansson · Post by **Christer Johansson** » Mon May 11, 2009 8:10 am

iann wrote:I had some difficulty getting my seed to germinate. Standard treatment gave me nothing, although E. vertongenii germinated 100% in the same conditions. Phil Crewe germinated his seed quite well with no special treatment. I eventually chipped all the seeds and got about half to germinate. Several of those didn't develop, either I damaged them or they simply weren't ready to grow.

Yes, I've heard about the trouble with E. umadeave and I'll try to somehow get them to germinate. That's why I try to germinate them in a petri dish, so I can find them and chip them later on if nothing happens

The seedlings are now strong and growing spines. They are likely to be prone to losing their roots for the first few years and they don't recover well from this or any other kind of root disturbance. Mine are all in separate pots and I won't touch them for at least a couple of years.

That seedling looks very healthy

Tony · Post by **Tony** » Mon May 11, 2009 11:52 am

Great looking plants Christer.

iann · Post by **iann** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:09 pm

I think of E. heinrichiana as more brown than black, but E. occulta doesn't seem to be a shiny one. I just thought maybe if the E. occulta wasn't and the E. heinrichiana came in the same box or sat next to it when the labels were pulled out by your niece then ....

Taproots can split, but the type of taproot that E. occulta should have isn't a root that springs from the flat bottom of the body. It is an extension of the body itself.

Here is a photo of E. occulta and E. heinrichiana (probably) that I happened to have lying around. The E. occulta is obvious enough, the body extends smoothly into a fat taproot which then tapers out with only a small amount of fibrous roots. The other plant came as Neoporteria chorosensis, which is usually referred to Eriosyce heinrichiana ssp setosiflora, a fairly flat form of E. heinrichiana with pink flowers, but otherwise fairly standard. E. heinrichiana is described as having large tuberous roots which my young plant doesn't have, but more importantly the body doesn't extend smoothly into a taproot. The body ends and then the roots begin, even when they are fat and tuberous there will be a neck. Your little E. occulta does this which is not typical for that species. I've seen huge variation even in the roots of some of these species, very tricky.

Christer Johansson · Post by **Christer Johansson** » Mon May 11, 2009 7:01 pm

At least I've got 3 occulta, and time will maybe tell what the others are. I'll keep an eye on the roots