Kay wrote:

In article , Tumbleweed thisaccountnever
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...

Can we agree, though, that it's definitely not a
Zygocactus/Schlumbergia?

From a single out of focus picture taken head on? There is no way of

knowing, with all the hybrids about there is a huge range of variation. The
single picture certainly isnt good enough quality to tell. 'Holiday cactus'
is probably as much as you'd get agreement on :-)

Not one of them at all. Flower is far too symmetric.

We'll just have to disagree, then. The stems are quite clear in the pic
and are not Schlumbergia, and I don't think there is a Schlumbergia with
3inch diameter flowers.

Or with one so lacking in the distictive strong bilateral symmetry in
the flowers that gives ZYGOcactus its Latinate species name.

The new pictures are clearer it is definitely an Epiphylum hybrid with
trilobed stems (rather than flat).

Regards,
Martin Brown

"bigjon" wrote in message
...
Tumbleweed decided to add:

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed
thisaccountnever
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...

I've only ever seen 'Christmas cactus' applied to
Zugocactus/Schlumbergia which has smaller and more tubular flowers
than
the one pictured - in other words, I don't think it is a Christmas
cactus at all.

As its a popular name with no precise definition it can be appled to a
wide
range of plants, a google even shows a reference to opuntia!!

Can we agree, though, that it's definitely not a
Zygocactus/Schlumbergia?


From a single out of focus picture taken head on? There is no way of
knowing, with all the hybrids about there is a huge range of variation.
The
single picture certainly isnt good enough quality to tell. 'Holiday
cactus'
is probably as much as you'd get agreement on :-)

Best I can do picture wise is he
http://www.topqualityfreeware.com/re.../whatisit.html


rhipsalidopsis gaertneri (Easter Cactus)

http://davesgarden.com/pf/go/54384/

or -

http://tinyurl.com/8myqg

for -

http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plan...gaertneri.html


(thorry K&T )

Er....not quite

Thorry everybody

Maybe aporocactus mallisonii


http://nature.jardin.free.fr/succule...orocactus.html








michael adams

....

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Kay wrote:

In article , Tumbleweed thisaccountnever
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...

Can we agree, though, that it's definitely not a
Zygocactus/Schlumbergia?

From a single out of focus picture taken head on? There is no way of

knowing, with all the hybrids about there is a huge range of variation.
The single picture certainly isnt good enough quality to tell. 'Holiday
cactus' is probably as much as you'd get agreement on :-)

Not one of them at all. Flower is far too symmetric.

We'll just have to disagree, then. The stems are quite clear in the pic
and are not Schlumbergia, and I don't think there is a Schlumbergia with
3inch diameter flowers.

Or with one so lacking in the distictive strong bilateral symmetry in the
flowers that gives ZYGOcactus its Latinate species name.

The new pictures are clearer it is definitely an Epiphylum hybrid with
trilobed stems (rather than flat).

Regards,
Martin Brown

new pictures?

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

michael adams decided to add:


Maybe aporocactus mallisonii


http://nature.jardin.free.fr/succule...orocactus.html


michael adams


I reckon that's it as well
aporocactus mallisonii

Thanks.

In article , Dave Poole
writes
Oh dear, this argument is getting a bit drawn out:

Kay wrote:

No I did not!!!!!!!!!
David, please!!!
I *can* recognise a Schlumbergia when I see one! And an Epiphyllum.
Especially since I have both atm.

Yes, I know if someone counts the s they'll realise that someone else
(attribution deleted) wrote this, but to the casual reader it looks like
I wrote the following paragraph, and I most certainly didn't!

From a single out of focus picture taken head on? There is no way of
knowing, with all the hybrids about there is a huge range of variation. The
single picture certainly isnt good enough quality to tell. 'Holiday cactus'
is probably as much as you'd get agreement on :-)

The floral outline of Schlumbergera (Zygocactus) is sufficiently
distinct and recognisable from any angle even with a picture that is
far more out of focus than the one shown. In Schlumbergera, the
petals on the lower half of the flower reflex sharply giving an almost
flattened effect and the stamens, etc are at the top of the flower to
facilitate pollination by hummingbirds. This means that the flowers
can only be divided into two equal parts along one plane i.e. they are
strongly zygomorphic, hence the old generic name; Zygocactus. They
are borne at the apices of the most recently developed stem sections,
not along their length.

The stem sections are short, flattened and either crenulate [wavy
margined] (as in the old 'Christmas cactus' - Schlumbergera x
buckleyi), or apically toothed as in the more modern hybrids. New
stem sections arise from the apices of previous stems and are most
often singular or paired, although 3 or 4 new sections can arise on
old, well established plants.

We'll just have to disagree, then. The stems are quite clear in the pic
and are not Schlumbergia, and I don't think there is a Schlumbergia with
3inch diameter flowers.

The flower as visible in the photograph is typical of a Disocactus
(Epiphyllum) hybrid. In the Disocactus hybrids, the tepals are not
strongly reflexed to give a flattened effect and the stamens, stigma
etc. lie at the bottom of the floral tube. There are more sepals and
petals than Schlumbergera and the overall effect is of a more rounded
flower at least twice the diameter of any Schlumbergera hybrid.

Stem sections are elongate to more than 40 cms. in well-established
plants and are also flattened, triangulate or quadrangulate. Unlike
Schlumbergera, new stem sections arise from aereoles lower down and
only infrequently at the stem apex. Flower bud formation is also from
the lateral aereoles and not at the stem apices..

The not-so-out-of-focus photograph clearly shows the widespread hybrid
which used to be known as Epiphyllum ackermanii (Orchid Cactus), but
is now know to be Disocactus x ackermanii etc. etc - I put this in an
earlier post in this thread. The plant most definitely not any of the
'Christmas cacti' (Schlumbergera/Zygocactus/Rhipsalidopsis) group.

Dave Poole
Torquay, Coastal South Devon UK
Winter min -2°C. Summer max 34°C.
Growing season: March - November

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , michael adams
writes
"bigjon" wrote in message
. ..
Tumbleweed decided to add:

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed
thisaccountnever
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...

I've only ever seen 'Christmas cactus' applied to
Zugocactus/Schlumbergia which has smaller and more tubular flowers
than
the one pictured - in other words, I don't think it is a Christmas
cactus at all.

As its a popular name with no precise definition it can be appled to a
wide
range of plants, a google even shows a reference to opuntia!!

Can we agree, though, that it's definitely not a
Zygocactus/Schlumbergia?


From a single out of focus picture taken head on? There is no way of
knowing, with all the hybrids about there is a huge range of variation.
The
single picture certainly isnt good enough quality to tell. 'Holiday
cactus'
is probably as much as you'd get agreement on :-)

Best I can do picture wise is he
http://www.topqualityfreeware.com/re.../whatisit.html


rhipsalidopsis gaertneri (Easter Cactus)

http://davesgarden.com/pf/go/54384/

No. Wrong stems, flower too small.

or -

http://tinyurl.com/8myqg

for -

http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plan...gaertneri.html


(thorry K&T )

Er....not quite

Thorry everybody

Maybe aporocactus mallisonii

Certainly not an Aporocactus which has cylindrical stems with any more
spines

http://nature.jardin.free.fr/succule...orocactus.html


the latest pics are typically Epiphyllum
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , bigjon
writes
michael adams decided to add:


Maybe aporocactus mallisonii


http://nature.jardin.free.fr/succule...orocactus.html


michael adams


I reckon that's it as well
aporocactus mallisonii

It is not an Aporocactus.

http://www.floralimages.co.uk/pepiph.htm

You've been told by David Poole who is urg's biggest expert on
tropicals, and by Martin Brown, who is our most experienced cactus
grower, that it is an Epiphyllum. You would be advised to trust those
opinions.


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Dave Poole
writes
, Kay wrote:

No I did not!!!!!!!!!
David, please!!!
I *can* recognise a Schlumbergia when I see one! And an Epiphyllum.
Especially since I have both atm.

Hold on Kay, I was not attributing anything to you - I was agreeing
with you and providing supporting information to back you up.

Ah, but because you left in Tumbleweed's paragraph but lost the
attribution to him, it looked to the casual reader that I'd written that
paragraph, and I wanted no confusion about that! ;-)

I
thought it was clear that I was referring to Tumbleweed's insistence
that there was some doubt as to the ID, when as we both know, there
was none.


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Kay
writes
In article , bigjon
writes
michael adams decided to add:


Maybe aporocactus mallisonii


http://nature.jardin.free.fr/succule...orocactus.html


michael adams


I reckon that's it as well
aporocactus mallisonii

It is not an Aporocactus.

http://www.floralimages.co.uk/pepiph.htm

You've been told by David Poole who is urg's biggest expert on
tropicals, and by Martin Brown, who is our most experienced cactus
grower, that it is an Epiphyllum. You would be advised to trust those
opinions.

Whoops! More research .. and it seems Aporocactus is now included in
Disocactus, which is where Epiphyllum belongs, so I withdraw that
comment completely. Aporocactus/Disocactus/Epiphyllum it is then.

I'll shut up and go and do a bit more studying.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Kay
writes

Some absolute rubbish!

Sorry!
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

You've been told by David Poole who is urg's biggest expert on
tropicals, and by Martin Brown, who is our most experienced cactus
grower, that it is an Epiphyllum. You would be advised to trust those
opinions.


ROTFLMAO!

They have proven to be completely clueless when it comes to Cactus and
succulent plants.


"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , bigjon
writes
michael adams decided to add:


Maybe aporocactus mallisonii


http://nature.jardin.free.fr/succule...orocactus.html


michael adams


I reckon that's it as well
aporocactus mallisonii

It is not an Aporocactus.

http://www.floralimages.co.uk/pepiph.htm

You've been told by David Poole who is urg's biggest expert on
tropicals, and by Martin Brown, who is our most experienced cactus
grower, that it is an Epiphyllum. You would be advised to trust those
opinions.


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

Had a brain fart, did you not?


"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Kay
writes
In article , bigjon
writes
michael adams decided to add:


Maybe aporocactus mallisonii


http://nature.jardin.free.fr/succule...orocactus.html


michael adams


I reckon that's it as well
aporocactus mallisonii

It is not an Aporocactus.

http://www.floralimages.co.uk/pepiph.htm

You've been told by David Poole who is urg's biggest expert on
tropicals, and by Martin Brown, who is our most experienced cactus
grower, that it is an Epiphyllum. You would be advised to trust those
opinions.

Whoops! More research .. and it seems Aporocactus is now included in
Disocactus, which is where Epiphyllum belongs, so I withdraw that
comment completely. Aporocactus/Disocactus/Epiphyllum it is then.

I'll shut up and go and do a bit more studying.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Dave Poole" wrote in message
...
, Kay wrote:

No I did not!!!!!!!!!
David, please!!!
I *can* recognise a Schlumbergia when I see one! And an Epiphyllum.
Especially since I have both atm.

Hold on Kay, I was not attributing anything to you - I was agreeing
with you and providing supporting information to back you up. I
thought it was clear that I was referring to Tumbleweed's insistence
that there was some doubt as to the ID, when as we both know, there
was none.


looks like there is plenty of disagreement ATM!

AFAICS, there now seems to be a 'super' family/genus/whatever called
variously Schlumbergia / Epiphyllum /Aporocatctus / Zygocactus and its
definitely one of those, and certainly aporocactus mallisonii ...or then
again, maybe not!

Is that the final verdict? AM?

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot comseason: March - November

"Cereus-validus-..........." wrote in message
...

Had a brain fart, did you not?


What's most interesting in this, is that as a self proclaimed expert
on cactus nomenclature, nevertheless the only time it seems you've
thought fit to comment on this particular question, is not to offer
some suggestion of your own as to the plant's identity, but merely to
pass comment on the fact that another poster has had the good grace to
admit to making a mistake.


Trollus parasiticus var.tedious, if I'm not altogether mistaken.


michael adams

....

Word up, spanky.

You trying to be a funny guy?

As far as you know, you should just sit your posterior down and stop rocking
the boat.

Otherwise you should learn really fast how to swim with the sharks.

Capiche?


"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

"Dave Poole" wrote in message
...
, Kay wrote:

No I did not!!!!!!!!!
David, please!!!
I *can* recognise a Schlumbergia when I see one! And an Epiphyllum.
Especially since I have both atm.

Hold on Kay, I was not attributing anything to you - I was agreeing
with you and providing supporting information to back you up. I
thought it was clear that I was referring to Tumbleweed's insistence
that there was some doubt as to the ID, when as we both know, there
was none.


looks like there is plenty of disagreement ATM!

AFAICS, there now seems to be a 'super' family/genus/whatever called
variously Schlumbergia / Epiphyllum /Aporocatctus / Zygocactus and its
definitely one of those, and certainly aporocactus mallisonii ...or then
again, maybe not!

Is that the final verdict? AM?

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot comseason: March - November