2 of the plants here are cereus
https://garden.org/users/profi...
Obviously not triangular shrub like cacti with thin stems
To add, i have requested them to be moved, but it was not processed

Original label said Cereus validus. A short search on Intranet revealed many of this specific cactus under that name. Unfortunately the name is no longer valid. According to Catalogue of Life it should be Acanthocereus tetragonus, which is a different cactus. According to other sites this should be Cereus hildmannianus instead. To me this seems a reasonable guess,

Ruud

Ruud, just to explain... there's been some changes in names for those cacti. C. validus was placed within Acanthocereus and then removed by Lodé. The CoL has not yet caught up with the latest change. So the tag was right in the end.

The database here follows the CoL (mostly) so there's no entry for C. validus except as a synonym for the other plant. However there is a genus entry for Cereus, and since the members of that group are very similar anyway, that genus entry ended up the best choice for your picture. Does that make sense? Just trying to explain the decision making involved. I sense the latest changes will be picked up by the CoL in the near future and then be stable for at least a little while.

https://garden.org/thread/post...

RuuddeBlock said:Original label said Cereus validus. A short search on Intranet revealed many of this specific cactus under that name. Unfortunately the name is no longer valid. According to Catalogue of Life it should be Acanthocereus tetragonus, which is a different cactus. According to other sites this should be Cereus hildmannianus instead. To me this seems a reasonable guess,

Ruud

CoL has been proven to be erroneous with some plants, especially cacti and or succulents...
Now, acanthocereus is supposed to be a shrubby cactus, with usually triagonal stems,and variable spines, resembling a more vertical, spinier hylocereus....
Im pretty sure fairy castles is also loosely affiliated to former cereus vallidus, and thus cereus, and not acanthocereus... which is also supported by other sources
It simply doesnt possess any features that adult acanthocereus do
It has 5-6 ribs, columnar stems, more than 5 spines per average, fuzz..
All features lacking in acanthocereus, but very obviously present in a lot of cerei...