The shop is closed just now. The shop is not open for orders yet. Everything here is real and grown in my own yard — have a look around — but I am not taking money until the last few things are in place. Ask about a plant

Mysterious Yard
Cart, empty
Knuthianus seal. Plain ring: nothing here sets a rib count, a spine length or a growth form the ring can mark.

Other Trichocereus

Knuthianus

Partially documented

Knuthianus is a species doing duty as a name, and the epithet is real: knuthianus was put into print by Backeberg in 1937, and the treatment now in use folds it into Trichocereus cuzcoensis. In cultivation the word attaches to more than one plant — the Sacred Succulents accession SS03, also in this library, is distributed under the same species name. So the honest reading is that this entry is a species label in circulation as a name, not a documented clone.Reported by one source, and not corroborated anywhere else.

Other TrichocereusInformal label: Shorthand or a describing label rather than a cultivar name. It does not promise one specific plant.

Of the 14 things this page says, 5 name who reports them and 9 are marked as something we cannot confirm. Where a line is not settled, it says so underneath.

Added 23 Aug 2026

At a glance

Species

Not recorded

No source named a species for this one.

Filed under Other Trichocereus

Parents

Not recorded

No source names a mother or a father for this one.

Origin

No record found

We have read the sources we hold and none of them says where this plant came from.

no source says whether it is seed-grown or a cutting line

In the yard

Not in the yardAsk if you are after one

Family line

what the record holds

No source in this library records a confirmed cross for Knuthianus, and no other entry here names it as a parent. What the record does hold is below.

That is the record, not an oversight: of the 749 names in this library, 693 have no recorded relation either. Most named clones were selected, cut and passed along without anyone writing down what they came out of. A parent goes in here when a source states it and never because a name looks like one — a wrong pedigree would travel further than a blank one, because pedigrees get copied.

If you know where it came from, tell us — a person reads everything before it appears.

Related entry rather than a parent: SS03 in this library is distributed under the same species name. That is a shared species label, not a line of descent, so it draws no edge.Reported, but not confirmed.

The longer version

A separate wiki page notes that Ritter's field number FR567 covers T. knuthianus collected in Peru.Reported, but not confirmed.

The epithet is a published one: Trichocereus knuthianus Backeberg, 1937, with a later combination placing the same plant as a of Trichocereus cuzcoensis.Reported by one source, and not corroborated anywhere else.

The current treatment carries Trichocereus knuthianus in the synonymy of the accepted Trichocereus cuzcoensis.Reported by one source, and not corroborated anywhere else.

The name honours Backeberg's co-author on Kaktus ABC, and most material in circulation traces to Ritter's seed list under FR567. The same reference disagrees with folding the name away, holding it a still-valid species closely related to Trichocereus cuzcoensis.Reported, but not confirmed.

One number in the account above cannot be checked. The same compiled index holds no record of any kind under FR567 — the number this page says most circulating material traces to — although it does carry other numbers of Ritter's, including the FR991 .Reported by one source, and not corroborated anywhere else.The account is left standing and this is recorded beside it, because a number missing from one index is not proof that a collection never happened.Reported, but not confirmed.

One Californian nursery sells at least two different plants under this name — one it traces to a named Californian garden, another brought in from a grower in Australia — and describes the second as growing lumpier than a third plant it keeps under a Sacred Succulents number.Too little stands behind this for us to confirm it.The point above, that a species epithet used as a clone name identifies a group and not a plant, was until now this library's own reasoning with nothing behind it. One catalogue carrying three plants under the word is the evidence.Reported, but not confirmed.

What the record holds

The wiki page exists under this heading but holds no text at all.Too little stands behind this for us to confirm it.The name is not empty everywhere, though: a compiled index of collectors' own numbered field lists holds three collections filed under this epithet, one of Karel Kníže's from the Río Marañón at Raimondi in Peru at 2200 metres and two of Graham Charles's, at Tingo Chico and at Quivilla.Reported by one source, and not corroborated anywhere else.That is what collectors wrote down under the name. It says nothing about any plant sold under it.Reported, but not confirmed.

Character

A bar is drawn only where one of the lines below states it — never from the species, never from a photograph.

  • Not documented yet.

  • Not documented yet.

  • Not documented yet.

Nobody has described the skin, the ribs or the spines of this one anywhere we could cite, so there is nothing here to draw or to list.

What the sources say

A species epithet used as a clone name identifies a group, not a plant. Nothing here describes an individual clone.Reported, but not confirmed.

Drawing of two plain Trichocereus columns of different heights, standing for the wider genus rather than one plant.
A Trichocereus column, drawn. We don't grow this one, and we will not borrow anybody else's photograph of it.

Filed under the same family, Other Trichocereus. The better-documented ones come first.

Keep exploring

Cultivar histories in this hobby are passed between growers; where sources disagree we say so rather than pick a side.