Kaktusy special loph taxonomy revision

[Gunter]

http://www.thenook.org/forum/index.php?sho...=14669&hl=ejido

A 3513 A diffusa ssp. fricii f. albiflora comb. prov., form with white flower, RS 404, Ejido Viesca, Coahuila i 2,00

A 3513 B diffusa ssp. fricii f. gigantea comb. prov., diameter of plant up 30 cm !!, KS 198, Ejido Viesca road to Parras de la Fuente, Coahuila i 2,50

If fricii is being accepted (by some) as willy, then I would love to learn more about these two location/collections of fricii.

The more I look the more I see two fricii phenotypes, one very diffusa like, the other very willy like.

I wonder what Mike makes of this? Have there been multiple chemical studies of fricii that agreed?

I am very interested in Lophophora fricii var. albiflora and L. fricii f. gigantea.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Archaea

[Gunter]

http://www5a.biglobe.ne.jp/~sdnet/lophophora.htm

Interesting site I found while looking into this more.

[SaBReT00tH]

the other day I was going to buy that Kaktusy Loph special journal on SAB and it said there were about 5 copies, but I just checked then and I can't find the item. Does anyone know where it's gone?

[teonanacatl]

there is one on ebay at the moment.

[SaBReT00tH]

yeah that's Mexicali's, (see This thread for my problem with that)

[kadakuda]

i know this post is old, but this kind of information is useful for a long time. great thread.

in regards to rib formation and the "decepiens" photo of the original description would this sort of be what we are looking at? this is a 9 cm one never grafted. it was taken as a 2cm cutting years ago from a mother that had the same dome shape as the picture above by Micheal.

this is a nephew/niece from seed of the above one. with flower. 5 cm. this flower is definitely no dark pink, but it is more pink than any of my "regular" type williamsii. compare this flower to the williamsii one below (both were planted at the same time, and are about the same size). also about the skin colour...are the "decepiens" that are named always very light white when young? the top picture of a more mature one is certainly quite "whitish" but the babies that are much younger are not quite as white (still more so than my williamsii/diffusa)....

"L. decepiens"

L. williamsii "var. texana"

this is what i am calling L. fricii. i notice all of the L. fricii also have much skinnier petals than the others...somewhat similar to the koehrssi but different still. and it is noticeably thinner than the "decepiens". does anyone else notice this difference (petal size) with fricii and "decepiens"?

in my plants, that are labeled by growers, not by field collections (so probably not that accurate) the fricii/decepiens are much whiter. also the flowers from the "decepiens" are indeed much darker/richer pink than the williamsii but no where close to the fricii that i have. the "decepiens" almost have a koehresii look but much darker...as in a pink central stripe that is a rich pink fading as it goes out to the edges...if that makes sense.

Edited August 20, 2007 by kadakuda

[trucha]

The genetics work hopefully should be able to be published before too long. I know for a fact the DNA was field collected (from the wild populations) and purified. It is now in the US and good microsatellites were established. Its well underway.

There is a huge amount of soundness in that line of separation.

Fricii is not a williamsii that is certain.

I'll post the details and a reference as soon as I am permitted to.

Edited August 20, 2007 by trucha

[kadakuda]

i cant wait!!! are you allowed to say what is being tested? is the whole genus being done? this is exciting!

Edited August 20, 2007 by kadakuda

[Ace]

Sounds fascinating Trucha! Please update us with any and all info asap!

I am still quite firmly of the belief that there are two sections under the Lophophora title: Williamsii and Diffusae. Within Williamsii there is only L. williamsii. Within Diffusae there is L. diffusa, L. fricii and L. koehresii. You can clearly see the main differences between rib structures - all within the Diffusae have 'diffuse' or flatter and less distinguished ribs (sometimes obtaining a 'pinecone' pattern). All L. williamsii have very well defined ribs (vertical or spiralling ribs, once they have matured). All L. williamsii flowers are smaller petalled with a light pink mid-stripe. L. diffusa flowers are similar to L. williamsii, but generally are white, yellow or light pink in colour (and may not have a darker mid-stripe down the length of the petals). L. fricii have a clearly a darker pink coloured flower (though this could be slightly variable and there may be lighter pink colours [as with all species and sub-species], as in Kadakuda's pics above). L. koehresii petals are very long and thin with a point on each, generally with a light pink petal colour.

There was talk earlier in this thread about a species (possibly L. viridescens [syn. L. koehresii]) being more or less spherical than other types - this would likely be due to the amount of watering, not a genetic difference (IMO). It is very well known that in times of drought that all species within the genus Lophophora will shrink and withdraw into the soil (as fluids are used over time) as both a result of using the precious water stored in the tap root and (likely) as a defense mechanism against sunburn/dehydration and eventually death.

I cant wait for a bit of proper chemical testing to be performed so we can finally say with certainty what species is what and where they belong (and throw out some old and defunct synonyms). Trucha, do you mind elaborating on what you know about this testing? Is it fairly hush-hush, or you arent sure of all the facts regarding the processes etc? Any idea when (roughly) the tests will be finished?

[kadakuda]

do these tests have anything to do with this book? has anyone read this?

http://www.amazon.com/Preliminary-Revision...2359&sr=1-1

A Preliminary Revision of the North American Species of Cactus, Anhalonium, and Lophophora (Paperback)

[teonanacatl]

http://www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/Scie...20Programs.html

[trucha]

Those divisions seem to be valid.

koehresii and williamsii's ranges partially overlap but they do not grow together as they like totally different soil types.

fricii is clearly not a williamsii despite it's habitat being so far north.

The work is still underway but I'll post details of wherever it appears as soon as I can learn more.

Echinata is a sad mess.

Leon Croizat and some oddness from Backeberg and European growers are the factors to thank for that.

When he wrote his detailed but problematic treatment of Lophophora Croizat used the words echinata and diffusa in one single plant name mentioning his plants studied came from Texas. Backeberg included this in his also largely problematic treatment of the plants.

European growers seem to have caught only the first part somehow ignoring the fact that there is no diffusa population near Texas. Perhaps they assumed Texas was a mistake or typo? Echinata is now regarded as a synonym of diffusa by most people obscuring the very interesting plants that Croizat actually intended.

Croizat was not discussing what we now regard as diffusa but rather the lower growing, grey-green not blue-green and significantly higher alkaloid Lopho that occurs in far west Texas (for instance around Shafter) and in northern Coahuila. It tends to grow in scattered small populations in rocky open limstone hills so is easily overlooked and largely unknown.

Thanks to that odd combination almost all echinata present in horticulture are actually diffusa and the west Texas plants have been nearly forgotten. They do exist in some private collections but there are mainly in the US.

In his book Texas Cacti Del Weniger has some nice images of this compared to the normal williamsii (he calls it var. echinata)

decipiens is also a sad mess but beautiful plants.

That particular rib formation can be witnessed on the odd individual in any large enough population in south Texas (in williamsii). I know this as I have witnessed it back when I still ate and picked peyote many years ago. Some other nonwilliamsiis in cultivation also express this lack of ribs and it is more common there. The Lamb's showed an interestingly similar example of in their odd diffusa (aka echinata var diffusa) image in vol 5 of their Cacti and other succulents (p 1297)

Srge Batov claims to have found a population in Mexico he purports to be what Croizat discussed based on the projection of the flower being higher than normal. He has not though managed to actually link his find with Croizat's plants and really can't do so since Croizat has no locality information at all concerning his plants.

The rules of nomenlature forbid the recycling of previously used names so Batov's use of the name is invalid unless he can somehow be proven to be right. Batov may be right but its going to be hard to prove. Drawings make lousy type specimens.

Edited August 22, 2007 by trucha

[kadakuda]

any updates? i think about this thread every other day

[Garbage]

Me too,the DNA work proposed is tantalizing.

I edit to add a stray theory,Fricii types will be found to be the ancestral hotbed of evolution for all Lophophora.

Williamsii types that are rampant across Mexico are simply decendants of one chance self pollinating mutation,which in turn reverted in part of it's distribution.

Or as is more likely evolved from the non self polinating williamsii mutation.

The Diffusa represent the last outpost of plants that evolved slowly south through Mexico from the Fricii homeland never having mutated into self polination.

The Koehresii represent a mutation of Diffusa that headed northwards.

The drift of Fricii to Diffusa occured when the plants were possibly more columnar and possibly with leaves,the return leg of Koehresii when they were less so.

The arrival of Williamsii is comparatively recent as a highly successful Fricii sport.

This places all other Lophophora as Varieties of Fricii

My tuppence.

Also if one looks at the argument for Lophophora having only two species one finds it is the unsophiticated identification of Peyote and false Peyote.

Anderson may have found that useful when dealing with the vulgar US legal system but that need not concern us at all.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Garbage

[glen]

Part of the problem in dealing with the cactaceae is that they are in the evolutionary time frame a fairly recently evolved group, as such they lack some of the greater morphological and genetic distinctions that would have arisen over greater geological time frames. Populations have not had suffcient time to isolate and differentiate as other plant families have. Any transfer of genetic material between the populations would muddy the waters so to speak and make this as everyone has noticed an extremely complicated issue. This is not only apparent in the classification of Lophophora but many of the Cactaceae obviously members here would have noticed the confusion regarding Echinopsis/Trichocereus nomenclature and the fact that many of these plants can interbreed.

As to the naming of a new species I believe it just has to be done in a proper fashion meting certain requirements, while its frowned upon to name something after ones-self it is still done eg Aztekium hintonii and its discoverer George Hinton

Edited April 16, 2008 by glen

[kadakuda]

what requirements do you propose? that is the question, no one will agree because there is probably no good single answer.

[occidentalis]

Part of the problem in dealing with the cactaceae is that they are in the evolutionary time frame a fairly recently evolved group, as such they lack some of the greater morphological and genetic distinctions that would have arisen over greater geological time frames. Populations have not had suffcient time to isolate and differentiate as other plant families have.

I don't agree

the Cactaceae may have arisen relatively recently but as we all know there is plenty of variation within the family. Taxonomists will always disagree to an extent, but essentially, if there is little morphological and genetic variation then there will be little taxonomic diversity recognised - ie, if the Cactaceae were all very similar then there would be fewer genera recognised within the the family, or perhaps the family itself would be relegated to subfamily status within another family, or there would be fewer species, or perhaps all of the above. There are lumpers and splitters in taxonomy but not to the extent that you suggest.

All of this does not pertain to the issue of human-vectoring and hybridisation on which point I agree with you.

[Garbage]

I wonder about extremists,do they recognise only one kind of Cactus?

Or two kinds,Cactus and Cactus Inermis.

[kadakuda]

Any news Trucha?

[Garbage]

First Cactus flowers of the year,the other species have buds but these came out of nowhere!

Notice the toothed sepals.

[Garbage]

The leftside plant showing squat form,flower teeth and extralong wool fillaments.

I noticed a few more buds forming,can't wait.

[Garbage]

My second flush of flowers were eaten by a now deceased snail,a diffusa and the buddy of this one were grazed upon.

Notice the really bright pink.

[Garbage]

This one was showing too,notice the lack of pink.

[Teotzlcoatl]

I just want to THANK everyone in this thread, espeically Mr.Smith, that map of Viesca was just what I was lookin' for!

[Teotzlcoatl]

The kaktusy authors state that L. fricii morphologically has more in common with diffusa and koehresii than with williamsii, and that it occurs within the range of L. williamsii but does not cross. I wonder if this holds true for cultivated plants?

I don't know if this has been added yet, but it is true, I myself own a fricii X koehresii hybrid cactus plant.