Kaktusy special loph taxonomy revision

[kadakuda]

my koehresii x diffusa breedings have failed everytime they don't set seed for me, and their morphology seems pretty different in comparison to fricci and koehresii. but all this speculation may be useless.

when are these results going to be made public? are they finished testing yet?

and are plants that are nursery grown useful to the study at all? offer is still on the table if they can use them

[Spiniflores]

Hello

I know that this is an old post, but I think that all of you will love to read the Kaktusy Special

 

http://rapidshare.com/files/128012732/kaktusy_peyote.rar

 

Copied from page 3:

"The following arguments support the recognition of two sections:

1. The sections Lophophora and Diffusae differ chemically in the composition of their alkaloids.

The Diffusae are a lot closer to each other in this respect and stand out clearly from sect. Lophophora.

Sect. Lophophora contains the alkaloid mescaline. The mescaline content of the total alkaloids is 15-30% in sect. Lophophora, compared with a maximum of only 1.3% in the sect. Diffusae.

Sect Lophophora contains 14-17% of the toxic alkaloid pellotine in its total alkaloid content, but is as high as 65-88% in the Diffusae!

2. Species of the Diffusae inhabit smaller, isolated habitats (ecological niches); L. williamsii, on the other hand, occurs over a vast geographical area

3. L. koehresii had been observed occuring together with L. williamsii. Equally, the habitat of L. fricci is enclosed within the habitat of L. williamsii. Despite of this, not a single instance of hybridisation or transitional forms has been observed wherever they are sympatric. This fact shows that they are incompatible and supports the present proposed classification.

4. L. williamsii retain the drier flower remains for much longer, while the perianth remnants are much more easily separated from the species of Diffusae. Diffusae plants shed their areolar wool more easily and earlier than in L. williamsii

5. Diffusae species have more numerous ribs (up to 21) of mostly undulating (sinusoidal) form. L. williamsii produces a maximum of 13 ribs, which are generally straight.

6. The soft tissues of the Diffusae plants with their delicate and thin epidermis in shades of green to yellow-green contrast visibly with the hard and tough, greyish green epidermis of L. williamsii. L. fricci mave a greyish green epidermis similar to that of L. williamsii.

7. The plans behave differently in cultivation. Most of the forms of L. williamsii are relatively resistant and will tolerate growers occasional cultivation errors. The Diffusae species, on the other hand, are much more sensitive to trauma.

The above are some of the differences between the two groups. Further observations are still needed. We do, however, assert that the species L. diffusa, L. fricci and L. koehresii have features in common and, as a whole, are distinct from L. williamsii."

-----------------------------

And actually, according to The New Cactus Lexicon (edited in 2006 by David Hunt) the genera Lophophora only have 3 species:

L. diffusa (Croizat) Bravo 1967

L. fricci Habermann 1974

L. williamsii (Salm-Dyck) Coulter 1894

I hope that this data help to your study on this beautifull species

cheers!

from Chile,

Spiniflores

Edited July 8, 2008 by Spiniflores

[kadakuda]

i am curious about the distribution and why it is used so much. These plants were picked/harvested for many years and traveled as far as CANADA. if diffusa/fricii/koehresii dont have much mesc in them, the indians probably would not have gathered them. the fact that they go for williamsii only and williamsii has a large range, seems like more than a coincidence to me..

seeing how they usually would pull up the plant, i would assume many roots got thrown out in different areas....and start growing. they are very adaptable when it comes to being ripped apart and regrowing.

whaddyall think?