Crossing Cacti

[Teotzlcoatl]

Anybody ever thought of crossing Turbinicarpus pseudomacrochele or T. pseudopectinatus with Lophophora williamsii?

I know some Turbinicarpus have been crossed with Lophophora....

Anybody ever try the crossing it with the two supposedly psychoactive Turbinicarpus cacti?

[watertrade]

I have been wondering about this for a while but not specifically lophophora and turbinicarpus.

I'm sure its not black and white but are there any general rules? Only within Genus for example?

[Teotzlcoatl]

Lophophora jourdaniana is thought to have been a cross breed between a Lophophora and possibly Turbinicarpus.

[Ace]

Lophophora jourdaniana is thought to have been a cross breed between a Lophophora and possibly Turbinicarpus.

Pretty sure Trucha mentioned something about Jourdaniana just yesterday (or very recently), in that it was probably found in cultivation from a seed batch with an unusually dark flower colour (a simple mutation). Odds are that the same mutation is somewhere in the wild too (or has been), but it's [probably] simply a mutated loph. I have heard of it being a possible cross between loph and turb, but I think Truch might be right in his idea. The things that point to turb are the tiny spines, slightly unusual growth habit and dark flowers, but these could very well all have come from a slight mutation. Its siblings could very well have been standard looking lophs. Being that jourdaniana's history/origins are so clouded, I cant imagine that we will ever know exactly where it comes from.

Anybody ever try the crossing it with the two supposedly psychoactive Turbinicarpus cacti?

I have heard of lophs and turbinicarpus (possibly lophophoroides (sp?)) being crossed, but not entirely sure if they were psychoactive, or if they had been tested for alkaloid profiles. I dont think there is much work being currently performed in this arena - it would definately make for an interesting project. I think there may be older threads about the possible turbXlophs - UTSE

are there any general rules? Only within Genus for example?

Generally, I believe that a genus is classified as defined species that can interbreed. However, I think that being full of taxonomy errors, the cactaceae (sp?) could have many species and genuses that are capable of interbreeding. As I noted above, I have heard (possibly rumours) of turbsXlophs, so it could very well be possible. The hard part would be finding species capable of crossbreeding. A very large task at hand, but if one had access to many different species (and probably large numbers of each) and plenty of time on their hands, they could do a bit of a project to see what crosses are compatible.

[PD.]

I have been trying to cross the two this season but i havent been real careful or made a note of what went where . i have had 3 lots of fruit on the lophs and im hoping the one this time was pollinated by the Turbini, its a long shot but time will tell.

[mark80]

My guess the best shot at hybrid would be L.Jordinaia and turbinicarpus (even T.lophophoriodes). Lets not forget gymnocactus.... I recently aquired sevreal species of gymnocactus and turbinicarpus which i will use for hybiridising as soon a sthey get bigger:)

[M S Smith]

There doesn't appear to have ever been a good arguement (even a real argument) that L. jourdaniana is an L. williamsii x Turbinicarpus. I have suspected it is a cultivation hybrid of L. williamsii with a dark pink filamented Mammillaria as L. jourdaniana has as its defining feature these dark filaments. Though this itself isn't a good argument there is nothing that says that it isn't as probable as any other reasonable cross. Below is the best article to date on cross-genera crosses. Next to that is a good shot of the dark filaments.

~Michael~

Edited January 25, 2008 by M S Smith

[Teotzlcoatl]

So it is possible?

I have heard of lophs and turbinicarpus (possibly lophophoroides (sp?)) being crossed, but not entirely sure if they were psychoactive, or if they had been tested for alkaloid profiles. I dont think there is much work being currently performed in this arena - it would definately make for an interesting project. I think there may be older threads about the possible turbXlophs - UTSE

It is rumored that Turbinicarpus pseudomacrochele and T. pseudopectinatus have psychoactive or medicinal properties.

Edited January 25, 2008 by Teotz'

[trucha]

The validity of the claims of those Lopho hybrids really being hybrids has been brought up by many cactus growers including Gerhard Koehres. Most people are now convinced that Schmidt's work lacked reality.

I know of a couple of people who claim differently but of the major breeders who are active in Germany and the Czech Republic none have been able to duplicate his results despite a great deal of trying.

According to James Mauseth all Lophos have spines (not just jourdaniana), they are usually much less than 1 mm long so lie hidden within the base of the hairs and are only going to be noticed with a careful dissection.

If jourdaniana was truly a hybrid does it not seem odd that it would only show up as the odd individual noticed among and then culled from multiple large lots of williamsii that had been exported to Europe (its origin was based on wild collected plants and not from ones that were produced in horticulture) and that it has never been encountered as a locatable population? Not for want of people looking that is for certain. Its origin in horticulture is not any mystery at all, only its original points of origin from the wild.

If jourdaniana is a hybrid its seedlings seemingly would express variable ranges of traits of the parents. Years ago when I still grew peyote I planted and raised a lot of jourdaniana from European seeds. They were overall very consistent in appearance and to me were nearly indistinguishable from the L. williamsii from the same vendors. The longer visible spines here and there (especially if the plants are grafted) are about the only thing I have noticed that can set them apart in terms of vegetative morphology.

It sems more likely to just be a mutant or williamsii variant with a nicer flower color and long spines.

DNA work would be nice of course.

There has been a fair bit of speculation about Turbinicarpus being active but I have never been able to determine its based on more than idle conjecture.

Edited January 28, 2008 by trucha

[Teotzlcoatl]

Well...

Is anybody willing to eat one?

[Ace]

Well... Is anybody willing to eat one?

Purposely consuming a cactus with the intent to get high would almost certainly be illegal (not entirely sure what the parameters would be for non-loph species though). This alone would pose some risks. Maybe more importantly, the ingestion of the unknown can be rather dangerous - perticularly if the said plant/substance had little documented data. I would advise against such an action and if the primary purpose of said action is simply to find activity, then one should probably look into proper testing. Of course proper scientific testing can be rather costly, but when it comes to the possibility of paying with your health, then I think you know which would be more intelligent. I know your post might have been lighthearted Teotz, but being on a public forum with potentially young minds watching/learning, I think that you need to be careful with what you say and how it is said. A lot of people could take such a comment the wrong way and could (although probably sensationalistic in my example) end up in hospital or worse.

[Teotzlcoatl]

I think we need to safely bioassy these cacti somehow...

Scientific testing is probably impossible for most of us.

We should debate over which speices to use.

Then have somebody eat it under the watchful eye of the community.

[Ace]

I think we need to safely bioassy these cacti somehow...

While I agree in a lot of ways, I'm sure the governing bodies of both Aus and the US would disagree somehow (just a feeling). I'm simply stating that your health and abiding the law are very important when dealing with things such as this.

Scientific testing is probably impossible for most of us.

If you were interested in scientific testing, you could always financially back someone in a position to test such cacti. An example is backing research like what Trucha mentions above. These cacti are understudied because governing bodies dont need them (because they cant exploit them). There are many small groups screaming out for funding to pay for these sort of tests. It might not be you doing the testing (and therefore getting the thanks), but who cares? The results are still the same. It would be much more sensible to test for mescaline and other possible active compounds via these tests than via bioassay.

I can see where you are coming from, but why risk your health on something that could be potentially dangerous (even if it's not likely) when the same sort of tests can be done safely (and legally) in a lab?

EDIT: We should debate over which speices to use.

Agreed wholeheartedly. This is one of the benefits of having a community such as ours. We can discuss possible areas to search in an attempt to locate new (and old) compounds.

Then have somebody eat it under the watchful eye of the community.

Again, safety comes into this a huge amount. We (the members of the community) are just people interested in these cacti, not research scientists (or at least not the majority of us). I just think it'd be much more sensible to do proper and safe testing, not risk ones health via bioassay. But plenty of people would much rather bioassay, so I guess just take this as one single opinion. I know I wouldnt go munching away on an little known plant that was recommended by a bunch of people from cyberspace. Just my opinion

Perhaps if bioassay were to be done, it could be done under controlled circumstances with health experts on board, but then I guess I'm just going back to scientific technique...

Edited January 29, 2008 by Ace

[mark80]

You do relaise that "we" includes yourself right teotz?

Why not grab your cactus and sit your arse down in front of the emergence ward, eat the cactus (saving a bit in a bag with a paper that says what you took and how much (the bit is so they can test it)) and if you sart to hallucinate or die they will try and save you and then they will need to look for wat you took.

[M S Smith]

I'm suprised this forum has even put up with Teotz as long as they have...he rightfully gets banned as a childish distraction at other forums. Jezz, I wonder why someone who claims to want to be a researcher, but who doesn't apparently known how to use library resources or a search engine gets banned for being a distraction? And as for his "I don't want to use these plants to get high" / "Let's all see if they can get you high" attitude, well it's just plain bi-polar.

Thanks for the words on L. jourdanianus kt, always welcome. So then, would you discount Loph x Mamm and Loph x Strom?

~Michael~

[Auxin]

 

 

I wonder why someone who claims to want to be a researcher, but who doesn't apparently known how to use library resources or a search engine gets banned for being a distraction?

To date I've just figured hes a young energetic product of the cheeseburger culture. Not everyone learns the merits of calming down, sitting down, and hitting the books to answer their own questions before asking others at the same age ya'know, especially nowadays when the medical establishment is trying to convince every parent their kid has ADHD and the kids grow up beleiving that bullshit. I just figure we might be a good influence on him- this forum tends to value wisdom alot more than many others.

[Teotzlcoatl]

Even if you test them chemically...

You still will not really know if they work or not until somebody has ate one!

I talked to a few people who said they would...

I just have to provide cacti.

I'm not gonna eat one...are you crazy?

I would like to ask you guys this....

If I do find somebody who has consumed one of these cacti or find someone willing to do so...

And they do...

Do you want me to tell you what happens?

Edited January 29, 2008 by Teotz'

[trucha]

I don't know Michael. I'm open to hearing of or seeing a bona fide cross that worked.

The conclusions the German and Czech growers have apparently reached about Schmidt is that his plants were selfed not crossed.

It can be a tricky business to pollinate a self fertile plant.

Personally I don't understand why Lophos CAN'T be crossed with other cacti although if plausible one would think that intermediates would be found occurring in the wild (especially in the case of Strombocactus since it naturally occurs in mixed populations with Lopho diffusa).

Other closer relatives like Acharagma and Neolloydia and Turbinicarpus and Echinocactus and Thelocactus also seem to occur in mixed populations with Lophos (sometimes growing almost on top of each other) without the incidence of any noticeable intermediates.

All I know is that the careful and controlled attempts I know occuring by professional growers with experience making hybrids have all been consistent failures in this subject area.

I've seen a fair number of things being presented as Lopho hybrids that either just have some odd morphological feature like odd creases or an elongated areole or are clearly not even a lopho but rather just some monstrose of another species.

I would like to see more work done myself mostly especially with DNA testing done to confirm a Lopho was really a parent of anything presented by anyone as a hybrid. It does not require very much tissue to obtain a DNA sample.

This is a situation where the burden of proof presently lies very squarely with the presenters of Lopho hybrids.

If they are real this can be demonstrated.

[mark80]

If I do find somebody who has consumed one of these cacti or find someone willing to do so...

And they do...

Do you want me to tell you what happens?

No.

We prefered it if you kept it all to yourself so all the people who have helped you will remain in the dark, and will see nothing of helping you.

IIRC there have been sucusful growing of t.lophophorides x lophophora williamsii as seen here

Edited January 30, 2008 by mark80

[trucha]

Nice!

If I was to get some people interested in learning more about the existence of this plant would it cause any threat or risk to its breeder? Lophos are legal to grow in much of the world but not all of it.

I would like to pass that link/image along but don't want to cause anyone problems.

If the breeder reads this I would love an assessment of their thoughts on that.

[mark80]

Hi,

I felt it important to finally speak about this plant of mine...

The seed came from the Bouma region in Mexico - that's the collection data:

Lophophora williamsii v echinata Bouma.

It exists in low numbers (nowadays) and it IS a natural hybrid between L. williamsii and "a" Turbinicarpus (can't give away all my secrets here)...

The Caespitosa IS self fertile, I have photos of the plant's flowers and fruits. Thing is that the Caespitosa takes a LOT LONGER to reach full maturity (flowering stage) because most of its energy is directed into developing new pups rather than maturing...they all do eventually

I have Caespitosas that flowered for the first time at 15 years of age (own roots - never grafted)...I know it's along time to wait for seed, but it happens eventually.

As far as doing experiments at crossing L. williamsii with other genera, there won't be much success with most of them...try crossing with the following plants: Obregonia and Strombocactus...they yield some interesting plants....there are a few Mamms that will give you some odd looking plants when crossed with williamsii and there is one Turbinicarpus (responsible for the spines on the Lopho).

Oh...there is a code for crossing either L williamsii or L diffusa v fricii with a particular Astrophytum variety....

So thank you for the comments you have made on this plant, I'll continue labelling it as the Echinata (old school) and you may call it a Jourdaniana. One more thing...Jourdan's nomenclature on the plant is not necessarily appropriate...same way as the Fricii....they named it after Frics but it really is a Diffusa (look at its chemical analyses)...so maybe they should be calling this plant L williamsii v Echinata fma Jourdaniana? :D

here is one from a member named "mexicali" although micheal argues alot of it later in the thread which mexicali doesn't repsond to, he also preposed an astrophytum lophophora hybrid somewhere else.

[paradox]

i don't know anything about crossing lopho's but i'd be inclined to take Mexacali's words with a grain of salt, personally

[trucha]

That's a little disturbing for lack of usefulness sadly.

I would like to know more about the name as Lophophora williamsii var echinata was named by Helia Bravo (Leon Croizat named echinata as a species).

[some images of those are posted at www.cactusconservation.org/CCI/tpt00.html]

I'd like to know more about the plant and the assertion there is a population of these. Or why there are fewer than there used to be. What became of them?

Does anyone know the grower?

It sounds like some of the data was perhaps conjectural or at least parts of it raises some flags for me. (Especially the identiification of the parents and identity as hybrid rather than local variant lophos. I am also puzzled how (or why) the origin of a naturally occuring hybrid is someone's secret.)

DNA work would be nice as would field work to document the claims. (The locality certainly does not have to be made public for that to occur.) Is there a bit of meristematic tissue available? Anyone that wants to talk to me about that should do so offlist.

On self fertility:

All of the known northern williamsii populations that have been looked at are self-fertile. This is based on both DNA work and on planting selfed seeds.

The El Huizache population in SLP is believed to be self-sterile based on failures of breeders to self it. DNA samples have been taken for analysis but they have not been analyzed only purified (while the researchers were still in Mexico).

[paradox]

I'd like to know more about the plant and the assertion there is a population of these. Or why there are fewer than there used to be. What became of them?

Does anyone know the grower?

It sounds like some of the data was perhaps conjectural or at least parts of it raises some flags for me. (Especially the identiification of the parents and identity as hybrid rather than local variant lophos. I am also puzzled how (or why) the origin of a naturally occuring hybrid is someone's secret.)

'Mexicali' is known as 'Gollumscacti' on ebay, i can vouch for him having very nice plants but i know many people have had dodgy dealing with him, as i have! he's known for making unsubstantiated claims, false advertising & threatening behavior.

From all accounts he seems to be a pretty untrustworthy & unsavory character.

[trucha]

Thanks all on the input.

Maybe its not pursuable but its an interesting looking plant.

There are also odd onzuka cv Lotusland that is a very branching monstrose myriostigma. If a Turbinicarpus lophophoroides expressed that sort of growth it might look much like that hybrid.

It would be nice to hear the results of deliberate cross pollinations of the parents -- lots of people raise them both.

I wish I had more time to keep up with the ongoing and past discussions. In visiting now and again I often miss most of what transpires as there just is not time to read it all.