First of all, all cacti are beautiful. Secondly, what am I talking about here? If you are outside of the trichocereus/san pedro cactus scene you may not be familiar with the term P.C. in reference to cacti. Trichocereus.net's write-up here is by far the best I have found
If you are really interested in deep-diving into trichos and the P.C. clone, get off of my blog right now and read theirs, because I get a lot of what I have learned from there.
That said, because this post is mostly to test my blog template and make some adjustments, here's a quick version of my stance on the P.C. clone:
As trichocereus.net points out, this is very likely not a pachanoi, and is more likely a clone of a Bolivian cactus. Bolivia is the homeland of the T. bridgesii and older P.C. clones show noticable similarities in their areolae to bridgesiis. Considering the photo used in tricho's writeup, I am of the opinion if we're going to use any scientific name for it, it should be t. riomizquensis. I have received some flack in the past for this association as there are non-pc riomizquensis specimen on the market that look distinctly different from P.C. and they think it cheapens them. I disagree.
On a reddit post, I once saw something along the lines of 'it's not the growers that have an issue with P.C.' and that's a sentiment I have seen through and through. The P.C. clone's features are unique, beautiful, and the coloring of a new P.C. pup is to die for. I've spoken with an australian grower who (like most australians) does not have access to the american P.C. and said it's high on his bucket list to get one.
So why the hate? Well, again, let's just say it's not from the growers.
If you are interested in getting your first San Pedro cactus, don't listen to the hate. Get a P.C. mid-cut, root it, and when that first pup comes out you'll be in love too. The P.C. is the perfect first tricho, readily available, tough as nails, and beautiful as all get-out.
