Leuenbergeria?

[dmcac]

Hello! I bought this as Pereskia portulacifolia (which is Leuenbergeria portulacifolia) a year ago. I would like to confirm if this is this species (or even genus). Thank you!

[DaveW]

Certainly its got spines and areoles so is certainly a cactus belonging to either Pereskia or Leuenbergeria. Both Pereskia and Leuenbergeria were validly published, therefore as with all classifications you are free to adopt either and call it by which generic name you prefer. The only "Holy Writ" in botany is the name must be validly published.

Classification therefore is merely a matter of opinion, though these days monophyletic classifications (= all from the same ev0lutionary line) are preferred using DNA rather than the old morphological ones based on similarity of looks. That is why they were all lumped in Pereskia in the past due to having similar leaves.

See:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuenbergeria

[anttisepp]

darn.. I always read as Leuchtenbergia... ))

[dmcac]

Thank you very much for your answers! Could this plant be not Pereskia/Leuenbergeria , but be Quiabentia? Or it is hard or impossible to tell? Thank you!

[DaveW]

Generally Quiabentia's are more related to Pereskiopsis therefore have more succulent leaves rather Echeveria like in thickness.

https://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CAC ... a_pflanzii

I am afraid identification often comes down to obtaining a proper botanical description of the species and checking against those. Also flower morphology is often used to determine genera.

The problem is few of us in non-tropical climates grow the shrubby "leafy" cacti so cannot immediately identify them as to species, even though the genus may be obvious. This video may help?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqX8Twd5Rvc

They can often be flowered about 2ft tall in a greenhouse. Most of the pictures in this thread are by the chap who produced the video above?

https://forum.bcss.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 49b800c11d

[dmcac]

Thank you very much for the great resources! They helped a lot. Out of all those Pereskia, P. lychnidiflora looks the most similar to what I have. Actually the fairly fleshy leaves of my plant made me wonder if it is truly Pereskia/Leuenbergeria, since most of those have thinner and curvy leaves. It looks like P. lychnidiflora may have fairly thick leaves. Recently I have obtained Quiabentia verticillata but it has no leaves yet (attached). Will have to wait and see if these two plants are different or I bought twice the same genus/species (hope not). Thanks again!

[7george]

Looks like a Quiabentia or even some Pereskiopsis to me but I can be wrong. The plant may change its look with age.

[loyall]

How about Quiabentia zehntneri?
https://cactiguide.com/graphics/q_zehntneri_a_600.jpg

[DaveW]

I have just done a search and found this comment by MrXeric who I think also posts here? I would not advise running your fingers over them to detect glochids though! Perhaps use a corner of a waste piece of cloth or cotton bud and then use a lens to see if any glochids have stuck to it?

"Pereskiopsis (and Quiabentia) is an Opuntiad and as such it has glochids, which none of the other leafy cacti have. Pereskiopsis leaves are also much more succulent than Pereskia et al. "

https://www.reddit.com/r/cactus/comment ... _pereskia/

[MrXeric]

I have just done a search and found this comment by MrXeric who I think also posts here? I would not advise running your fingers over them to detect glochids though! Perhaps use a corner of a waste piece of cloth or cotton bud and then use a lens to see if any glochids have stuck to it?

"Pereskiopsis (and Quiabentia) is an Opuntiad and as such it has glochids, which none of the other leafy cacti have. Pereskiopsis leaves are also much more succulent than Pereskia et al. "

https://www.reddit.com/r/cactus/comment ... _pereskia/

Hey that's me

And I agree this look more like Quiabentia or Pereskiopsis (don't ask me the difference!). Leaves look too thick for Pereskia (Rhodocactus and/or Leuenbergeria), but I could be wrong!

[dmcac]

Thank you very much for all of your suggestions and opinions! I do appreciate them!
I agree that both plants that I have pictured before are Quiabentia. I have pictured glochidia of both of them (see images below). So it looks like I bought it twice - the first and bigger plant was twice cheaper... but wrongly identified.
In the meanwhile I have purchased Leuenbergeria portulacifolia which I think is a true one. And it is looks quite different indeed (see images below).
I have Pereskiopsis diguetii in my collection and at least this species has distinctly less fleshy leaves in comparison with my Quiabentia.
Thanks again for your help!

[dmcac]

Recently I saw several images of Pereskiopsis aquosa and think that's what I actually have and pictured (first image)...

[Tom in Tucson]

darn.. I always read as Leuchtenbergia... ))

[Tom in Tucson]

Recently I saw several images of Pereskiopsis aquosa and think that's what I actually have and pictured (first image)...

Iv'e only grown 2 species (Pereskiopsis porter,i, and P. diguetii ), but I'd also like to try this one as well, if I ever stumble upon it. (ouch ).

[nachtkrabb]

(...) Classification therefore is merely a matter of opinion, though these days monophyletic classifications (= all from the same ev0lutionary line) are preferred using DNA rather than the old morphological ones based on similarity of looks.
(...)

Dave, I am very happy to read this.
I do agree with you from the bottom of my pencilcase.
Nachtkrabb