Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
Teotzlcoatl

Crossing Cacti

Recommended Posts

I know if it puts out seeds, that they are hybrids!

nope, self fertilization is quite possible, and maybe even common, in many cacti species with other pollen. you wont know until you grow them, even then there can be lots of doubts and possibilities.

i have tried many crosses, few have been successful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obregonia can self-pollinate?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obregonia can self-pollinate?!

mmkay teo. reproduction is no simple thing, and i am far from understanding it well! but think of it this way. Obregonia stigma (the female part that is at the top/end whatever of the flower...it catches the pollen) wants Obregonia pollen. when pollen arrives on the stigma it germinates......to make things simple think of it as a mushroom spore or a seed, but it is different.... when the pollen germinates there is a pollen tube that grows and goes down the style (this is the connector of the stigma (where pollen lands) and the ovary which has the ovules -future seeds-). think of it as a womans vagina and the sperm travels to the ovaries to fertilize the egg. sperm=pollen ovary=ovary ovules=eggs.

with foreign pollen on say an obregonia flower, there are many variables. 1, the pollen may not germinate at all. the pollen tubes may not reach the ovules. there are many variables to think about, and i cant think of many. so this means that its own pollen just might have a chance to reach the ovules and fertilize itself, making a selfed fruit from a normally self sterile plant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kadakuda is too modest. This is some of the best info available on the web!

I agree! :)

so this means that its own pollen just might have a chance to reach the ovules and fertilize itself, making a selfed fruit from a normally self sterile plant.

Hmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmm I see what you mean Kada, us growers merely looking at the physical appearance of a plant only and making inferences based explicitly on its morphology can only go so far... speculations really.

I thought those ario x leucht in the pic have exceptionally rounded tubercles but maybe that's just me.

looks like a normal Leutch to me.

That is what I was thinking... the Lophophora X Turbinicarpus hybrids I've seen look VERY different than both of their parents.

and anyway I doubt that they are closely related enough for it to be even possible.

Then you haven't done your research.

Obregonia, Leuchtenbergia and Acharagma are the cacti which are most closely related to Lophophora.

SEE THIS LINK! wonderful info!

The paper documents the close relationship among Acharagma, Lophophora and Obregonia. Based on DNA evidence the species are placed in a well-supported clade (the Lophophora Clade).
Edited by Teotzlcoatl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you haven't done your research.

Obregonia, Leuchtenbergia and Acharagma are the cacti which are most closely related to Lophophora.

If so, then Lophophora is related to Ferocactus...? :huh:

Leuchtenbergia MIGHT have been crossed with Astrophytum ornatum as shown in the link I posted in the other thread, though as Kada says the messed up genetic pool of Astrophytum with all the tuberculate cultivars going around and being selectively bred for this feature means that it could just be a cv. of A.ornatum. Indeed, it does look like a myrio cv. kikko and also appears similar to an offset of A.coah cv. Lotusland.

here is a possible Loph diffusa x Astro asterias...:

http://www.panarottocactus.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=553

(w/ astro cv porn too)

edit: ok i now realise that this has already been posted.

perhaps you would also like this Astrophytum myriostigma fma. nudum x Lophophora diffusa?... :rolleyes: :

http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/~hama-jj/visit_2_37.html

I crossed L.williamsii with turbini macrochele and grafted seedlings.. guess what.. seedlings are just normal williamsii so I selfed the loph.

a supposed Turbiniphora:

http://www.panarottocactus.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=492

Edited by culebra22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obregonia, Leuchtenbergia and Acharagma are the cacti which are most closely related to Lophophora.

SEE THIS LINK! wonderful info!

Teotzlcoatl, I'm not sure I understand your argument. You say "Obregonia, Leuchtenbergia and Acharagma are the cacti which are most closely related to Lophophora" and then you make a reference to what has to be the article Molecular systematics of Tribe Cacteae by Butterworth et al.

It's correct that Butterworth's results demonstrate a very close relationship between Acharagma, Obregonia, and Lophophora but Leuchtenbergia is placed in an entirely different and not that closely related clade, the Ferocactus clade (check the diagram on p. 263 in the article). I don't see how you can use Butterworth for arguing a close relationship between Leuchtenbergia and Lophophora?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems I made a mistake.

Thank you for correcting me.

I can't remember where I heard Leuchtenbergia was closely related to Lophophora...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Crossing experiments within the genus Lophophora

Gerhard Koehres has reported successfully making the following crosses within the Lophophoras (success being judged by the production of seeds that have then been grown into actual seedlings) 

Koehres noted these to be self-sterile:
L. alberto-vojtechii 
L. diffusa 
L. fricii 
L. koehresii 
L. williamsii El Huizache SLP
L. williamsii Norias del Conde SLP
Koehres listed 25 additional L. williamsii populations that he had determined were self- fertile.
L. williamsii Parras, Coahuila is said to be self fertile despite most people now placing this with L. fricii.

Koehres did not get pollination for L. koehresii using pollen from L. williamsii Huizache but found L. williamsii Huizache could be successfully pollinated using pollen from L. koehresii.

Koehres also successfully pollinated L. koehresii with pollen from L. fricii and L. diffusa. (Kada used a self-fertile L. williamsii and could get no pollination using pollen from L. diffusaL. fricii and L. koehresii.

L. fricii was reported by Koehres to be successfully pollinated using pollen from L. koehresii and L. diffusa. (Kada reported failures after 7 attempts involving L. diffusa pollen, 13 with L. williamsii and 18 L. koehresii pollen but reported success for 1 attempt involving a L. williamsii.) 

L. diffusa was successfully pollinated by Koehres using pollen from L. koehresii. (Kada has recorded a consistent failure after 11 attempts with pollen from L. fricii, 4 with L. koehresii pollen and 3 using L. williamsii pollen.) 

L. koehresii was successfully pollinated by Koehres using pollen from L. diffusa and L. fricii but not with pollen from L. williamsii Huizache (Kada reported successful pollination for 19 attempts using L. fricii pollen but none in 4 tries with L. diffusa pollen  and 29 with L. williamsii pollen) 

Koehres found that fruit can form from the early flowers within around 8 weeks but for the later blossoms the fruit often do not emerge until the following year. Koehres also commented that the self fertile populations are very uniform in comparison to the self sterile populations which are more highly variable in the shape of the body and the flower.

 

Lophophoras suspected of being hybrids

There are a number of Lophophoras in horticulture that are known to be or suspected to be hybrids. Most intriguing to me are Kada’s Lophophora diffusa Obregonia denegrii. I look forward to hearing how those seedlings grow up.
At some point an entry on this subject will be added here but the work is still ongoing so only this note is presently being included." https://sacredcacti.com/blog/lophophoras/''
 
And for those interested in f2 Lophophora hybrid seed.... https://www.koehres-kaktus.de/shop/Cactus-seeds/Lophophora---1_364-10.html
 
The above is Lophophora williamsii x Lophophora fricii f2.
 
 
Not sure if anyone else is growing these, but for those interested in hybrids they are worth a shot.

 

 

Lophophora from one locality to the next has such variability in pollen it makes sense that some crosses might not be possible with one locality, but possible with another. Whatever the case may be, you have to salute those hybridizers that have been successful in these endeavors as well as those that were bold enough to try and fail. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to consolidate...

Koehres pollinations

Lophophora williamsii Huizachex Lophophora koehresii

Lophophora williamsii x Lophophora fricii

Lophophora williamsii x Lophophora fricii f2

 

Lophophora koehresii x Lophophora fricii 

 Lophophora koehresii x Lophophora diffusa

 

Lophophora fricii El Amparox Lophophora koehresii

Lophophora fricii  x Lophophora diffusa

 

Lophophora diffusa x Lophophora koehresii

 

Kada

Lophophora diffusa x Obregonia denegrii

 

Other hybrids as per http://www.magicactus.com/lw_jourdaniana.html  1935206449_Lophphophorahybrids2.thumb.png.3c2a16484ec87dc93c355aa77b995fed.png1967664221_Lophophorahybrids-1.thumb.jpg.888ab26d566681bbabfc41d642e97f44.jpgand other sources

 

Lophophora williamsii x Mammilaria bocasana

Lophophora williamsii x Mammilaria zeilmanniana

Lophophora williamsii x Mammilaria Strombocactus disciformis

Lophophora williamsii x Turbinicarpus pseudomacrochele

Lophophora williamsii x Ariocarpus fissuratus

Lophophora williamsii x Astrophytum asterias

Lophophora williamsii x Epithelantha micromeris

Lophophora jourdaniana

Lophophora jourdaniana var. mammilaris

 

Now, much of what I have found did not include locality information for specimens used in these crosses nor did they always include whether the specimen chosen was a self-fertile or not.

 

Also note, there is not much information to be found on how these pollinations occurred. Was the flower emasculated first? Was a donor pollen or mentor pollen utilized? Was a cut style approach used? 

 

Given that often it is possible for a particular phenotype to be dominant over another was the cross carried out further to the f2 or even backcrossed to help bring out the recessive traits or was it just assumed the cross was successful without further breeding of the progeny?

Were the progeny sterile thus making an f2 impossible to make?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×