Species
Terscheckii
The best-recorded plant on any of these pages, and the one whose name has moved furthest away from the one the trade still uses.
One plant, three published names
The International Plant Names Index records Trichocereus terscheckii (J.Parm. ex Pfeiff.) Britton & Rose as a validly published name, first published in 1920. The same plant was published as Echinopsis terscheckii by Friedrich and Rowley in 1974, and again as Leucostele terscheckii by Schlumpberger in 2012. The treatment this library follows carries the plant as Leucostele terscheckii, and carries Trichocereus validus in its synonymy.Reported by one source, and not corroborated anywhere else.
Which name to use
Both names are recorded here, and neither is corrected on the other's behalf. Which one to reach for depends on who you are talking to: a grower will say Trichocereus, and the treatment now in use says otherwise.
What has been found in the wild
Asked for Trichocereus terscheckii by name, the collectors' own field-number lists return 251 distinct collections from 32 collectors — 210 at Argentine localities, 3 at Bolivian localities, 2 at Chilean localities and 36 whose locality names no country. Asked for Echinopsis terscheckii instead, the same lists return a further 88 distinct collections from 5 collectors, all of them at Argentine localities.Reported by one source, and not corroborated anywhere else.
Why the count is split
The record for this plant is split across two names, so anybody counting either one on its own will understate it. That is worth knowing before trusting any single figure about how well collected a species is.
What growers report
One grower groups it with the other heavy-bodied species as unusually resistant to sun, pests and rot, slow-growing by the standards of the genus, and shy to flower.Too little stands behind this for us to confirm it.
Every feature on this page moves with age, sun and water: a thirsty plant in hard light grows longer spines and a heavier bloom than the same clone in the shade. None of it settles an identity on its own, a clone name is not proof of a species, and a photograph is a pointer rather than an answer.