cactophyle Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) FYI Toetz: Tests have been done on several Turbinicarpus species and all contained Hordenine as the main alkaloid I believe. I don't have a link handy to that data, but you could Google it I'm sure. My interest is in growing Turbinicarpus, which happens to be the new main focus of my collection, so I stumble across this type of reading all the time. I do also believe that chemical analysis is an important scientific method to assist in the classification of cacti, so its worth understanding. I did find this brief but interesting chemical analysis of T. alonsoi, which states that pellotine was discovered, albeit probably trace amounts Of course, Pellotine is actually poisoinous and its presence is not desireable, however, one might assume that T. alonsoi, shares some genetic history with Lophophora based on the presence of this alkaloid. As far as I know, as the name implies this alkaloid was first discovered in Lophophora analysis, and it is not commonly found in other cacti. The alkaloid profile is compared to Ariocarpus in the analysis though. To quote: "Four known cactus alkaloids, N-methyltyramine (0.0052 ± 0.0008 % w/w), hordenine (0.0048 ± 0.0008 % w/w), N-methyl-3,4-dimethoxyphenethylamine (0.0020 ± 0.0005 % w/w), pellotine (6,7-dimethoxy-1,2-dimethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline- 8-ol) (0.0075 ± 0.0009 % w/w), were identified in Turbinicarpus alonsoi... The finding of hordenine in T. alonsoi is not surprising, because hordenin is the major alkaloid of other cacti including several Turbinicarpus species too. Finding Nmethylated derivate of 3,4-dimethoxyphenethylamine predicate a chemical similarity of Turbinicarpus alonsoi with the genus Ariocarpus and total alkaloid constitution contradistinguish from alkaloids content of other Turbinicarpus taxones too." Maybe I will look into the species you mentioned to see if I can find any real data like this... Turbinicarpus_alonsoi.pdf Turbinicarpus_alonsoi.pdf Turbinicarpus_alonsoi.pdf Edited March 22, 2009 by cactophyle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kadakuda Posted March 21, 2009 roots like that are 100% environmental i think. cuttings end up like this (including degrafts). Me and many others intentionally prune the tap root as all the water intake is taken through the fine hairs on small roots, taps are only transport/storage. if they are tiny roots coming from the base of the plant i may think it is a degraft, sometimes people leave a small piece of the graft stock on so that its the stocks roots that grow, but you cant see it so it looks like an own root plant.....good way to get fast size and keep appearances up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cactophyle Posted March 22, 2009 (edited) [Dump] Edited March 24, 2009 by cactophyle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kadakuda Posted March 22, 2009 aztekiums are notorious for not rooting from cuts. even loph cuts/degrafts will develop very thick roots, so i would bet yours has a stock in it. it may not show well. Lophophora tend to grow around the stock as well, covering the top. which means after a while the join is actually up the plant a fair ways (cause the loph grew down a bit as well). this makes it really hard to take the stock out when degrafting, adn although it may only be 1cm long there is still stock up there, and with roots pretty much impossible to see. if there are really no thick roots, and they are more stringy than i would bet ya its still grafted, even if ya cant see it pics would help if ya want. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hellonasty Posted March 22, 2009 I had a quick look and didn't see these interesting shots anywhere (Sorry if I missed it and they have been posted). Source: http://www.panarottocactus.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=553 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cactophyle Posted March 22, 2009 (edited) [Dump] Edited March 24, 2009 by cactophyle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auxin Posted March 22, 2009 Scion does send stuff down to the stock. If it didnt then the stocks would be permanently pupping due to lack of auxin signals from the scion. Heres a little blurb on Opuntia ficus-indica (which he calls O. compressa) stocks where he points out that after a few years he buries the stock so its hidden and it does just fine [1] and heres same dude grafting seedlings onto O. ficus-indica hypocotyl so the resultant plant has Ariocarpus top and Opuntia tap root [2] Dunno how he does that, my every attempt at grafting to Opuntia hypocotyls failed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cactophyle Posted March 22, 2009 (edited) Scion does send stuff down to the stock. If it didnt then the stocks would be permanently pupping due to lack of auxin signals from the scion.Heres a little blurb on Opuntia ficus-indica (which he calls O. compressa) stocks where he points out that after a few years he buries the stock so its hidden and it does just fine [1] and heres same dude grafting seedlings onto O. ficus-indica hypocotyl so the resultant plant has Ariocarpus top and Opuntia tap root [2] Dunno how he does that, my every attempt at grafting to Opuntia hypocotyls failed I know that burying the root stock is common practice, but it kills the stock eventually (when the stock is completely buried). My research on this practice concluded that the point was to avoid degrafting, and allow the scion to grow it's own roots while remaining attached to the (dying) stock. I've even seen pictures where the scion grew roots straight through the dead stock, but nothing suggesting the scion would keep the stock alive. Edited March 24, 2009 by cactophyle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kadakuda Posted March 23, 2009 I know that burying the root stock is common practice, but it kills the stock eventually (when the stock is completely buried). not true, at least no more than normal....i have Lophophora that have been buried with a small stock for over 10 years! buried stocks obviously will not contribute to photosynthesis (and they often go brown being under ground), but they will surely keep pumping water/nutes up! First, I believe it is impossible to have a root stock that is less than 1" tall no matter what type of plant is used. 1 cm stock (smaller is possible, and has been done as well). grafted cacti generally grow as one...the phloem/xylem are connected and water nutes and _________ go back and forth quite easily (if grated properly). in your new thread it just looks like root pruning, which is an excellent method to not only grow them faster but not have to keep buying tall pots! also makes tray growing quite easy (good for nurseries/large scale collections!) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jmmvl Posted March 23, 2009 don't mix up o. compressa and o. ficus-indica. o. compressa is a species of prickly pear that can live in zone 3. apparently, due to how it "compresses" for the winter, it can make a scion cold hardy. this will be an experiment of mine this year. also, if anyone in the US wants a few pads, drop me a PM. i'll be taking cuttings in late april or early may. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted March 23, 2009 Dude that looks like a freaking Astrophytum/Lophophora cross!!! Holy shit! Has anyone heard of a cultivar that has a fibrous root system? Is this a hybrid? All the Lophophora I know of have tap roots! But Astrophytum have fiberous roots!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) Look at Post #100 in this thread! That is a freaking Astrophytum myriostigma X Lophophora williamsii cross!!! I just KNOW it! Look at the body of the cactus!!! Kada remember that Astrophytum myriostigma you sent me? Imagine that mixed with a Lophophora and thats what the cactus in post #100 of this thread looks like!!! Astrophytum myriostigma- + = Astrophytum X Lophophora hybrid? See the last post on this page. Post #100.??? ??? How many ribs does Lophophora normally have?! The one in question has the exact same number as Astrophytum myriostigma!!! I think this is it guys! This is a real Lophophora X Astrophytum hybrid!!! Just LOOK at it!!! Edited March 23, 2009 by Teotz' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kadakuda Posted March 23, 2009 nope, thats a willy above is a photo of a lophxastro, by a excellent italian breeder! btw willy have 5,8,13ribs the photo u posted above looks like a jourd, not a willy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted March 23, 2009 above is a photo of a lophxastro, by a excellent italian breeder! Why do they look so fucked up? Will all my crosses turn out like that? I sure hope not! nope, thats a willy Are you sure? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auxin Posted March 23, 2009 Why do they look so fucked up? Will all my crosses turn out like that? I sure hope not!No those are not Loph X Astro hybrids, they are alleged Astro X Loph hybrids, huge difference in this instance. I say alleged because I think its a bit more than suspicious that every supposedly successful cross he got happened to turn out to be a monstrose. Those monstrose forms may just as easily come from selfed Astro seeds or wild pollinations, I see no reason to believe the hybridization worked.Just like how nearly all alleged Loph X anything hybrids simply look like slightly monstrose lophs. Take difficult hybrid reports with a grain (or pound) of salt. If your crosses are successful then generally only a great minority will turn out monstrose. And keep in mind that novel monstrose forms are more valuable than novel hybrids because they often can not be reproduced. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted March 26, 2009 No those are not Loph X Astro hybrids, they are alleged Astro X Loph hybrids, huge difference in this instance. I say alleged because I think its a bit more than suspicious that every supposedly successful cross he got happened to turn out to be a monstrose. Ya fo' real. Sounds like bullshit to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cactophyle Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) I stumbled back upon that chemical analysis of Turbinicarpi I was thinking of about a week ago in a previous post. This link is quite thorough and lists multiple species. Though Hordenine is the most common alkaloid, it seems that Pellotine, Anhalonidine, and Anhalinine (and even some traces of Mesc) exist in Turbinicarpi, and those -- as the name "Pellotine" suggests -- can also be found in Lophophora. Here is the link to the analysis: http://www.mfaint.demon.co.uk/cactus/turbo/alkaloids.html Interestingly, I compared the chemical analysis of the species to the best subgenus classifications I could fine (imo), and it matches pretty much to a 'T'! Here is the classification: http://www.lumrix.net/health/Turbinicarpus.html What seems to be a fact is that the Turbinis that look most like LW have the most similar chemical profiles. According to my estimates the entire "Serie" Lophophoroides, and Turbinicarpus as listed in this link would be ideal candidates for hybridization. Edited April 2, 2009 by cactophyle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted April 2, 2009 What seems to be a fact is that the Turbinis that look most like LW have the most similar chemical profiles. According to my estimates the entire "Serie" Lophophoroides, and Turbinicarpus as listed in this link would be ideal candidates for hybridization. Yup, I'm pretty sure the T. lophophoriodes aggregate is listed as canadiates for hybridization. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cactophyle Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) Of all the Turbinicarpi I've only heard confirmed reports that T. lophophoroides itself was compatible, but yea, if the classification is correct then the entire aggregate will most likely work. And due to the similar chemical profile and morphology, the Turbinicarpus ssp will probably also work. I'm not so sure about the other subgenera/series because they have Mammillaria-like spines, yuck! I read somewhere that some Mammillaria may be compatible, but the result just wouldn't be desirable IMO (Mammillaria are one of my least favorite types of cactus because almost all you see is spines). The same Turbinicarpus classification is now on Wiki, and a bit easier to read there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbinicarpus Note: Alonsoii has an oddball chemical profile (PDF posted previously) compared to the other Turbis, but it looks very similar to T. lophophoroides. I also can't help but notice the similarity in tubercles between these Turbinicarpus and Obregonia as well as Strombocactus disciformus (and to some degree Ariocarpus), which are known to be compatible. Edited April 2, 2009 by cactophyle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted April 3, 2009 Alonsoii has an oddball chemical profile (PDF posted previously) compared to the other Turbis, but it looks very similar to T. lophophoroides. I also can't help but notice the similarity in tubercles between these Turbinicarpus and Obregonia as well as Strombocactus disciformus (and to some degree Ariocarpus), which are known to be compatible. Good eye... thats something I noticed a long time ago.... I'll be trying Turbinicarpus X Obergonia soon!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cactophyle Posted April 12, 2009 Good luck Toetz, Kadas says none of his Obregonia hybrid seeds were viable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kadakuda Posted April 12, 2009 Kadas says none of his Obregonia hybrid seeds were viable. no i didnt they were certainly viable, just very very weak and poor germ rates. iv posted pics of seedlings, but that doesnt mean the cross worked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teotzlcoatl Posted April 12, 2009 no i didnt smile.gif they were certainly viable, just very very weak and poor germ rates. iv posted pics of seedlings, but that doesnt mean the cross worked. Thanks for the correction. What cross did you attempt? Seeing as I only have 1 adult Obregonia, I know if it puts out seeds, that they are hybrids! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
