Tarev,
Thanks for the link.
That link may say it all, actually. The following note: "Species Notes: The name Cereus peruvianus is not an officially accepted name and is often applied to cereus-like cacti in cultivation with no known origin. For more info refer to this article."
That referenced article is good reading. In it the author says "The name Cereus peruvianus has been applied to both C. hildmannianus and C. repandus which are both recognized as legitimate species today. The trouble is, neither of them resemble the many plants that we see labeled as Cereus peruvianus." He goes further and states the plants are simply not properly identified. It's the authors' belief they are cultivated plants not found in the wild. He suggests that it's going to take DNA evaluation to establish the truth of it. I wish I knew what year he published the article.
Well, none of that leaves me with a sound id. I guess I'll just make an entry on the plant list using the name provided and use both C. hildmannianus and C. repandus as alternative names. It just doesn't seem settled enough to me to say it's one or the other with any certainty. This is the sort taxonomic nomenclature that tends to bounce around like a tennis ball in play.
