Jump to content
The Corroboree
  • 0
Ace

Identifying the Lophophora Genus

Question

Here is a basic identification guide for those who are still new to the Lophophora genus. Enjoy and feel free to comment. Please note, my guide is based upon the Kaktusy - Lophophora Coulter edition (2005), and contains excerpts from this handbook. There is much controversy regarding the genus and classifications of sub species, but I feel this is by far the most efficient and up to date at this point in time.

OVERVIEW

Firstly, there are four natural species within the Lophophora genus:

- L. williamsii

- L. diffusa

- L. fricii

- L. koehresii

There is also one cultivar, not found in the wild:

- L. jourdaniana

And there is recent speculation (June 2008) about a new, miniature species, found in the wild and flowers when the crown is around 15mm diameter (see here for further information):

- L. alberto-vojtechii

SECTIONS

Kaktusy propose that the genus should be broken into the following two sections (and numerous reasons are given for this proposition, including alkaloid composition, habitat, hybridisation compatibility and macroscopic appearance):

- Diffusae (containing L. diffusa, L. fricii and L. koehresii)

- Lophophora (containing L. williamsii)

Section Diffusae information excerpted from Kaktusy:

Common features and characteristics of the section Diffusae:

Similar chemical composition of its alkaloid content, among which pellotinoids prevail. None of the species in the section is autogamous. The flowers have longer receptacle tubes. The epidermis is thin and vulnerable. The ribs are often diffuse or indistinct. If ribs are produced, they may reach up to 21 in old plants. No shallow podaria are formed on the ribs separated by transverse horizontal notches. The structure and shape of the roots are similar to the smooth and fine epidermis.

Section Lophophora information excerpted from Kaktusy:

Common features and characteristics of the section Lophophora:

Similar composition of alkaloids, with mescaline alkaloids prevailing. With few exceptions, the various forms of L. williamsii are autogamous. The epidermis is rather thick and tough, often with a purplish undertone. The ribs are distinct, straight or spiralled in a maximum number of 13. Typically, horizontal notches form in the ribs. Sometimes the areollae merge into a nearly unbroken line. The wool is sticky, solidifying into tough crests and staying on the plant for a long time. The roots typically have quite a rough texture.

SPECIES

L. williamsii is by far the most common species, stretching across most of the Lophophora habitat. This is commonly known as peyote, and contains various psychoactive compounds, the main and most active being mescaline. L. williamsii is also one of the easiest to identify. The distinctive ribbing in older specimens is usually vertical or spiralling, with most plants starting with five ribs and developing up to thirteen with maturity. Flowers are pale pink with shorter petals than the other sub species. All sub species will clump with age (though some individual plants tend to stay singular for their lifetimes), but L. williamsii forma caespitosa (seen in the central photo below) tends to pup at a very young age and can carpet a large area in its lifetime.

L. williamsii characteristics information excerpted from Kaktusy (page 32):

L. williamsii Characteristics:

Flattened or depressed, spherical plants with solitary to clustering stems; the ribs are distinct, only occasionally broken into podaria; the greyish green epidermis is of a firm nature and bears a thick layer of cutin and surface waxes. Flowers rather small with a short tube in pinkish white to richly pink hues. The pink cylindrical fruit bears the remnants of the perianth. Seeds black, distinct from those of the other species.

post-2347-1185848182_thumb.jpgpost-2347-1185848203_thumb.jpgpost-2347-1185848224_thumb.jpg

L. diffusa is a far rarer species named after its rib habit. It has diffuse ribs (meaning they are not clean-cut ribs as found in the L. williamsii sub species) which tend to have a somewhat 'pinecone'-like appearance with the rib pattern. The epidermis (skin) is a lighter green, bordering on a yellowish tinge. Flowers are very similar to that of L. williamsii, but can have a yellow/green/white colouring. The main compound found in L. diffusa is pellotine and mescaline levels are very low.

L. diffusa characteristics information excerpted from Kaktusy (page 14):

L. diffusa Characteristics:

A large, appressed, spherical stem; solitary to clustered growth; peculiar yellowish green soft epidermis; diffuse ribs, often broken into separate low podaria; off-white flowers with shades of yellow and rarely pink; cylindrical, white to dark pink fruits.

post-2347-1185848278_thumb.jpgpost-2347-1185848305_thumb.jpgpost-2347-1185848257_thumb.jpg

L. fricii has a rib structure very much like that of L. diffusa, but with an epidermis colour more like that of L. williamsii (darker green than L. diffusa). Flowers are very bright pink and are the main distinguishing point from L. diffusa.

L. fricii characteristics information excerpted from Kaktusy (page 26):

L. fricii Characteristics:

A flattened spherical species of solitary to markedly clustered growth and an immense diversity of features; the numerous ribs are conspicuous to absolutely diffuse; the colour of its thin epidermis varies from yellowish green to greyish green; flowers vary from nearly white to dark purple-pink; seeds are similar to those of L. williamsii at first sight, but differ in the shape of the hilium, which is reminiscent of a shark's maw, and in the texture of the testa.

post-2347-1185848330_thumb.jpgpost-2347-1185848350_thumb.jpg

L. koehresii is supposedly the smallest of the genus (or at least was, until the recent speculation about L. alberto-vojtechii), with a growth habit very similar to that of L. diffusa. Flowers are light pink, but have much longer petals with pointed tips.

L. koehresii characteristics information excerpted from Kaktusy (page 20):

L. koehresii Characteristics:

Dwarf, depressed spherical, solitary species with a marked dark green epidermis; does not sprout spontaneously in the wild; the initially distinct ribs later break down, sometimes almost disappearing and transforming into low podaria; flowers large with mostly long and narrow petals, the white to pink colouring supplemented with brown stripes shading from the outer petals inwards, and making a characteristic colour combination; unusual spherical fruits with the remnants of the perianth shed before it ripens; the seeds are largest of all lophophoras with a very characteristic testa.

post-2347-1185848373_thumb.jpgpost-2347-1185848394_thumb.jpgpost-2347-1185848449_thumb.jpg

L. jourdaniana is thought to have been a cross breed between a Lophophora and possibly Turbinicarpus. It is only found in human cultivation, and as such is classed as a cultivar. It is the only sub species to have small spines (others only have tufts of wool at each areole, but may have very small spines at a young age). Flowers are a dark magenta-pink. This species is very rare and is not thought to be found in Australia at this point in time.

post-2347-1185848471_thumb.jpg

CONCLUSION

I guess all in all, the easiest way to ID the Lophophora species is that L. williamsii has very distinct ribs, while the other species are hard to tell apart without a flower. It might also be noted that there is visible difference between the sub species in the seedling stage - the cotyledons (seed leaves) tend to be slightly differently shaped, though L. diffusa, fricii and koehresii are all very similar (as are the mature plants) - which can give you a bit of a clue when differentiating between the sub species, but I wont go into that now.

REFERENCES

All pics were borrowed from here without permission. Please have a look there for more brilliant photos of the Lophophora genus and almost every other within the Cactacae.

Information about the Kaktusy 2005/2 Genus Lophophora Coulter. booklet can be found here.

Cheers,

Ace

Updated (March 2009) to include detailed excerpt from Kaktusy.

post-2347-1185848182_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848203_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848224_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848257_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848278_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848305_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848330_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848350_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848373_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848394_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848449_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848471_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848182_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848203_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848224_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848257_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848278_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848305_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848330_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848350_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848373_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848394_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848449_thumb.jpg

post-2347-1185848471_thumb.jpg

Edited by Ace
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
jourdaniana should be viewed as a horticultural cultivar since no wild populations have been demonstrated.

There is apparently a newer species, assuming this proves to be valid:

Lophophora alberto-vojtechii

Jaroslav Bohata

in Cactus & Co 2008 2 (12): 105-117.

Its a miniature with an unusual flower,

Does this thread specify that Lophs have to occur in the wild. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by "jourdaniana should be viewed as a horticultural cultivar since no wild populations have been demonstrated." It seems a bit dismissive. I only mentioned it because earlier in this thread it was stated that jourdaniana was not known to occur in Australia.

Peace

:)

Forgive my impudence, I'm new here. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

What is intended in my comment is the name is not valid when employed as species name. Or at least I think the larger discussion in this thread involves what names are now considered to be valid or at least how many species exist in the genus?

Lophophora has tons of invalid names that have been published.

Jourdaniana was created by culling individuals out of larger lots of williamsii based on flower color.

This occurred entirely in Europe. Its therefore not a valid species name but it could be used as a valid cultivar name.

Descriptions of species are generally written based on wild plants (with some exceptions) and unless the names are grandfathered in these require a locality of origin (not by me but by the code of botanical nomenclature).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Lophophora jourdaniana is better thought of as Lophophora williamsii var. jourdaniana, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
What is intended in my comment is the name is not valid when employed as species name. Or at least I think the larger discussion in this thread involves what names are now considered to be valid or at least how many species exist in the genus?

Lophophora has tons of invalid names that have been published.

Jourdaniana was created by culling individuals out of larger lots of williamsii based on flower color.

This occurred entirely in Europe. Its therefore not a valid species name but it could be used as a valid cultivar name.

Descriptions of species are generally written based on wild plants (with some exceptions) and unless the names are grandfathered in these require a locality of origin (not by me but by the code of botanical nomenclature).

I stand corrected and educated as well,thank you. I think I need to get a few books before I try sounding like a smart arse :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Lophophora species-

Lophophora brackii / Lophophora decepiens var. brackii (?)

Lophophora decepiens

Lophophora diffusa

Lophophora fricii

Lophophora koehresii

Lophophora jourdaniana

Lophophora williamsii

Many, many more strains and cultivators exist, especially of Lophophora williasmii.

~Diffusae~

Lophophora diffusa

Lophophora koehresii

~Williamsiae~

Lophophora brackii / Lophophora decepiens var. brackii (?)

Lophophora decepiens

Lophophora fricii

Lophophora jourdaniana (Possibly a hybrid, not found wild)

Lophophora williamsii; var. texana; var. caespitosa

Out-of-date-names-

Anhalonium lewinii

Echinocactus williamsii

Lophophora echinata

Lophophora lewinii

Lophophora lutea

Lophophora viridescens

Lophophora ziegleri

P.S.- Am I missing anything? Is anything incorrect?

What kind of argument can be made for the distictiveness of Lophophora brackii / Lophophora decepiens var. brackii???

Teotz, first, please note adding one enter after another only creates wasted space - please try to keep things tidy (as I've done with your edited post above). Second, I think some of your names are out of date. I have only included current names (as per the Kaktusy guide - google search if you arent familiar) which include williamsii, diffusa, koehresii, fricii and jourdaniana (which Trucha has advised probably should fall under another title as it is indeed a man made cultivar - Trucha, should it be L. williamsii cv. jourdaniana as Teotz posed?). Names such as brackii and decipiens are synonyms and were created after the main four (w, d, k and f) so are therefore null. Your out of date list is indeed correct IMO.

Trucha knows the classifications much more thoroughly than I so it is probably best for him to clarify.

Edited by Ace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks for the response.

Seems like we need a list of cultivators as well...

I'm still not sure if Lophophora brackii / Lophophora decepiens var. brackii (?) is a distict species or not, I guess I'll have to wait and see when I grow it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm still not sure if Lophophora brackii / Lophophora decepiens var. brackii (?) is a distict species or not, I guess I'll have to wait and see when I grow it...

It is definately a synonym for one of the previously mentioned species. Its been a while since I've looked through old names so i cant remember what it should be named (I'm pretty sure its just williamsii). If it was distinct it would be in current nonclamenture.

Edit: Seems like we need a list of cultivators as well

This thread was mostly just a quick glance guide to IDing the genus, but if you want to break it down into cultivars be my guest. However its probably just easier to link to a site such as Koehres Kakteen for pics of many clones/cultivars, such as L. williamsii v. Sierra Paila and L. williamsii v. Cardona and let people do their own brousing/learning. I dont mind though :)

Edited by Ace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Something to keep in mind is many names appearing in seed catalogs are given incorrectly. Names are often created for sake of ID and sales purposes.

"var" or "forma" anything - if only found in a catalog - should ideally be recorded with at least the company name following it.

A real name would have the describers listed of course.

Having either vendors or describers names included with extensive listings of species names is almost essential for them to be able to be discussed meaningfully.

Cactus Heaven's nice listing is great for preserving locality info in the name but is a bit misleading for designation of nomen nudum varieties.

How jourdaniana should ideally be expressed is not a simple question.

If intending the original name it SHOULD read jourdaniana Hort. Rebut since as a name it is a horticultural selection first appearing in the Rebut catalog a really long time ago. Hort. just means the name is of horticultural rather than botanical origin.

However it entered horticulture as a selection from wild plants rather than something bred for and those selections apparently entered from more than one point so whether that means all jourdaniana were synonymous with what Rebut sold is really anyone's guess at this late date. It was not actually described until the 1970s - many decades after the name appeared.

It is probably best expressed as L. williamsii cv. jourdaniana.

Fricii seems to be a solid species in its own right

Koehresii is also deserving specific recognition.

The new miniature species is really interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks Trucha. Do you have any more info on this miniature species? I would be very interested in some text or pics on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
The new miniature species is really interesting.

What? Do tell?

It is definately a synonym for one of the previously mentioned species. Its been a while since I've looked through old names so i cant remember what it should be named (I'm pretty sure its just williamsii). If it was distinct it would be in current nonclamenture.

I don't think it's really been studied at all... I only know of one man who has ever even seen it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
jourdaniana should be viewed as a horticultural cultivar since no wild populations have been demonstrated.

There is apparently a newer species, assuming this proves to be valid:

Lophophora alberto-vojtechii

Jaroslav Bohata

in Cactus & Co 2008 2 (12): 105-117.

Its a miniature with an unusual flower,

he posted teh article with the new specie above.

I got my mag coming any day now, i am dripping with anticipation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That is the one.

Its a tiny plant. Whether the flowers are more normal sized or koehresii sized I cannot presently tell from the photos I've seen but the tiny body makes them appear huge.

On names - if one looks at listings in the literature where they appear the source names are generally included.

If it is a catalog presenting them as trade names the name of that company is what is needed.

If a person can't tell where a name came from it is not very useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

BTW impudence is often a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

just got it and gave it a good read. they state flower diameter of 15-35mm.

I find the whole thing very interesting, and i can make connections with my own plants (in referrence to the kaktusy article), and i seem to accept these studies fairly well.

one thing i am having a little bit of a time bending my head around is the rib count. they say 5 ribs, very few have 8. Seems all lophophora, excluding this one?, are similar in their rib counts...i am wondering if perhaps these are just super slow growers, and/or perhaps a newer variation/specie?

something else i have always wondered, not just cacti but all life, is location details. 100km away from L. koehresii. considering that many animals eat the fruit (birds, rodents, some insects etc), it seems at least very possible for plants to spread apart. an example would be a bird comes by and eats a bunch of fruits of ready Lophophora, fly over a ways and take a couple seed filled dumps around a given area. not disagreeing with them....but it seems to me if they grow in fairly similar situations as L. koehresii, and they seem to be fairly similar in many respects, jsut 100km away...could it not be a variant of koehresii?

EDIT: i forgot to mention. with the large range of tribes using williamsii, is it not possible that seeds would drop, roots get thrown out and they grow along the way? thee people have made long journeys....so its seems more than likely (i want to say probable, but wont) that humans have introduced williamsii, and not diffusa, to many locations, perhaps this is a reason for their range in comparison to "Diffusae"??? how many hundreds of years have they been used? and these things have traveled, by foot/animal, to Canada! seems at least a little logical, no?

i can see the other things that distinguish them as different such as skin colour and and rounded petals.

but the ribs just make me unsure....they are mature, they're flowering.....but i get this feeling that they grow larger. if they do belong to diffusa group, their ribs are also *often* not straight....straight ribs seem, in plants i have grown, to be sorta common in smaller plants (with 5 ribs), but once they are a little larger (say for arguments sake 4cm...?) OR they start uping their rib count to 8+ they start getting that wavy unknown diffusa/fricii/koehresii look to them. all the pics i saw in the article are fairly straight, like a small diffusa/fricii.

Do you know how close they are from fricii populations.....seems they could be fairly close to fricii as well, except them round petals.

anyway, i am jsut excited to finally read this and was just playing devils advocate, feel free to beat me down with your stupid stick if i make no sense or sound like a retard lol :slap:

Edited by kadakuda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

How does Koehresii differ from Diffusa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

How does Koehresii differ from Diffusa?

According to Kaktusy, location is one defining factor. A simplistic look at all four species in regard to location is quoted below:

L. diffusa 'follows the water'

L. fricii 'lines the lagoon'

L. koehresii 'runs up the plain'

L. williamsii 'colonises both the plains and the hills'

This is made much clearer when looking at a map showing the population locations, however I dont have one on hand atm to upload (hit the SE).

Another quote from Kaktusy:

L. koehresii is a seperate species (from L. diffusa) because:

1. it inhabits a seperate area and disjunct from that of L. diffusa

2. it differs from L. diffusa in its ecological preferences

3. it has distinct morphological features, such as fruit shape, body colour, or seed testa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

and it doesn't readily breed with diffusa.

Teo, really...get a copy of those books! the kaktusy ones are posted online, even here...search around, it will answer all your questions :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Original post has been updated to provide a few excerpts from the Kaktusy booklet which go into greater depth regarding species characteristics. It would be interesting to see how the proposed new species, L. alberto-vojtechii fits into the proposed sections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Ace- if you have any further information/photos regarding the differences between seedlings, they would be much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

seedlings wont tell you a whole lot until larger but here are some comparison photos of plants sown and grafted at the same dates. ignore colour, as that is just watering/light differences :)

Lophophora fricii (albifora)

L-fricii-albiflora-1.jpg

Lophophora koehresii (this is grafted, they usually rarely pup until larger)

L-koehresii-2.jpg

L-koehresii-5.jpg

Lophophora koehresii x L. fricii

L-koehresii-x-L-fricii.jpg

Lophophora 'jourdaniana'

Ljourdaniana-2.jpg

Lophophora williamsii

L-williamsii-3.jpg

Lophophora williamsii 'caespitosa' (an ugly fricken example!)

Lw-caespitosa-2.jpg

Lophophora williamsii 'decipiens'

L-decipiens-3.jpg

Lophophora williamsii 'texana'

L-w-texana-1.jpg

Just realized i didnt keep any L. diffusa form these batches for comparison :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Kada, BRILLIANT collection of pics! Exactly the sort of thing this thread was crying out for :wub:

Rhodostrum, sorry, I dont have much more info atm about seedling differences. I was very tempted to take that part out of the post because even I'm not sure now where I found it originally (no doubt an old thread from the Corroboree archives). A lot of the stuff I had typed is probably a little average compared to the Kaktusy quotations and I hope with time I might be add a little more solid data and less of my ramblings. As kada mentions, it is quite difficult to determine species until they have swollen into a much larger size (at which stage rib structure, colour and flowers are what will help you out with the IDs) and grafting helps this process immensely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

thanks :) lots more where that came from (about 30gb of loph pics lol!)

it is quite difficult to determine species until they have swollen into a much larger size (at which stage rib structure, colour and flowers are what will help you out with the IDs) and grafting helps this process immensely.

grafting is kind of a double edged sword. in a way its a blessing because we get such quick results. but on the other hand, highly stock dependent, grafting can mutate the appearance. for example the koehresii pic above with so many heads. that would almost never happen seed grown....it started pupping at 2mm, yikes! pereskiopsis is especially bad at doing that :( but the benefits seem to far outweigh the drawbacks thats for sure :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

yes that one, now go buy it :)

there are those that disagree with various parts of that book, but for the most part i agree with the 2 sections 4 species idea....that said i have only cultivated plants, never gone to their wild. one thing i like about this book, and SO many other sources seem to pay no attention to is *reproduction*. i see so many articles talking about identification and don't even mention reproduction....something that i find to be essential to understanding any species personally. im not taxonomist, but it jsut seems logical to use it as it is in so many others plant groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Ace, thanks for the info.

Kada, beautiful pictures, thanks! Amazing how similar they look even when they are that young:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×