Lophophora ID

[Teotzlcoatl]

Help me out with this ID.

[Ace]

Standard williamsii IMO. The reason why the ribs aren't straight is because they are adding ribs.

[Teotzlcoatl]

Thanks for helping me out Ace.

Anybody care to confirm that ID?

I'm not very good at Lophophora ID...

Thanks again.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Teotz'

[Teotzlcoatl]

Will somebody confirms Ace's ID that they are standard L. williamsii?

[M S Smith]

Ace's opinion is good enough not to have anyone question it. That says something in itself I suppose. But since you want it, yes, standard L. williamsii.

~Michael~

[Ace]

Thanks Mike

[Teotzlcoatl]

Thank you guys both so much.

Mr.Smith it's not that I doubt Ace at all, it's just nice to know for sure.

Thanks again.

[M S Smith]

Thank you guys both so much.

Mr.Smith it's not that I doubt Ace at all, it's just nice to know for sure.

Thanks again.

I can assure you that I possess no more skill in Lophophora ID than most others, particularly those who grow them clandestinely or where it is allowable. I don't actually pay much attention to Lophophora as I find the taxa rather boring, and this regardless of all the "varieties" that get bandied about.

~Michael~

[Teotzlcoatl]

Your the Trichocereus man aren't you Mr.Smith?

Edited January 15, 2009 by Teotz'

[Inyan]

I assure you, Michael is an expert on more than just Trichocereus there Teotz. With that said, anyone can become something of an expert if they just peruse a few sites. Now, the degree of expert is often looked at... expert as in having read enough from various web sites and publications and such with high quality locality information, growing information, or practical first hand knowledge? Whether your borrowing your knowledge from a collection of other experts or learning first hand yourself... new insights are always possible if your open to listening to others.

http://www.koehres-kaktus.de/index1gb.htm

[san p]

hi,a FOAF is very happy to now have this little cacti in his collection.any ideas of the variety?thanks

[.dg]

hi,a FOAF is very happy to now have this little cacti in his collection.any ideas of the variety?thanks

too small to tell, looks like a loph though

[bℓσωηG]

Looks like you rolled it out of plasticine lol.

[KanJe]

Are the crystals just the top dressing or are they being used for all the soil.

Never seen that before.

[san p]

hi,yeah its a lophophora ,just wondered if anyone could guess what kind it might be.its too young to tell i guess.

yeah it does look kind of plasticine like aye.

and yep the crystals are just a top dressing

san p

Edited July 24, 2009 by san p

[Ace]

Sanp, my guess would be L. williamsii v caespitosa. It is hard to tell with the dark photo, but the buttons forming on the main head indicate that it is the clumping caespitosa variety. Just something to keep in mind, I would probably repot it into a pot that only provides around an inch or two on all sides of the loph as it will cut the moisture levels to a more suitable point. By the look of it, there is a lot of room in that pot which will result in much more water retention and more chance of rot. You would be able to keep it in that one however, as long as you keep watering to an absolute minimum and as long as there is a bit of sand and non-organic material to assist with drainage.

[san p]

thanks for the tips ace,i was expecting someone to say caespitosa. from what ive read here there seems to be speculation to caespitosa's "contents".and that the grey coloured variety is lacking in these but the green coloured contains them.

any confirmation on this would be appreciated.

thanks

san p

[Ace]

To be honest, I'm still completely unaware of caespitosa activity. From reports online some say they are active, others say the opposite. I (honestly) have no first hand experience with the consumption of any cacti so I can only pass on second hand info from online or from texts. You mention green and grey varieties - from my experience (back when they were legal to grow in my area) the grey variety would sometimes receive a scratch revealing a beautiful glossy green underneath. I have a feeling they are actually one in the same, unless they have been clones derived from different seeds, in which case, who really knows.

I guess the only way to determine if the grey or green var. is more active would be if one were to perhaps grow a large clump of both, take identical weight cuttings from both, then extract to pure mescaline from the cuttings to determine which had more pure compound. The only difficult part is that even within the same plant there can be differing levels of compounds and two identical clones grown under identical conditions can exhibit different activity levels (again, from what I've read).

Personally, I'd recommend avoiding eating any lophies and keep them only as ornamentals. They are gorgeous plants that, with some love and care, will outlive their owner. Why cut that short for a few hours of phenethylamine-fun? There are much more renewable sources for that if one really did wish to break the law.

[zelly]

From the same picture only shaded a little lighter its easy to see its a caes variety.

However I'm in disagreement with Ace's assumption that buttons forming on the main head automatically make it a caes.

As the picture shows, the side buttons appear to be on their own roots & not forming on the main head.

As for lighter green caes varieties & darker gray-green caes varieties I dimly recall posting a thread on this awhile back with examples of both.....

[san p]

thanks for the id help guys.the smaller buttons are forming off the main button.

san p

[zero]

thanks for the id help guys.the smaller buttons are forming off the main button.

san p

It is Def Lophophora williamsii var. caespitosa

PM me if you want to know more ;p

zero

[Ace]

Thanks for the light adjustment Zelly - that makes a world of difference

I'm in disagreement with Ace's assumption that buttons forming on the main head automatically make it a caes.

You dont think it is a good indicator for caespitose lophs? From here: caespitose - (of plants) growing in small dense clumps or tufts. Dont get me wrong, it is not a guaranteed ID, nor would it be an exact way to correctly ID any loph that way, but I think it's a pretty good guide when trying to pick a label for a plant in this fashion I've certainly seen my share of regular williamsii (and other lophs) with many heads on the one rootstock, but for a plant that size to have so many heads indicates without too much doubt (IMO) that this great specimen is L. williamsii v. caespitosa.

Also, As the picture shows, the side buttons appear to be on their own roots & not forming on the main head.

I'd wager $ on those side buttons being on the same roots as the main head Wait, sorry, San P has already indicated so

[Alice]

Just something to keep in mind, I would probably repot it into a pot that only provides around an inch or two on all sides of the loph as it will cut the moisture levels to a more suitable point. By the look of it, there is a lot of room in that pot which will result in much more water retention and more chance of rot.

That's very good advice.

When I was starting out I though "a big pot will give them room to grow plump and juicy!" but at that size they're just too susceptible to rot due to damp soil. Trust me

[zelly]

It is hard to tell with the dark photo, but the buttons forming on the main head indicate that it is the clumping caespitosa variety.

Ace, this is the statement I am disagreeing with, and I think you've pretty much confirmed there are many exceptions to your statement.

(Therefore it's not a valid statement)

Let me illustrate with several pictures:

A clumping three headed lw on a single taproot

a clumping multi-headed difusa, pups from aeroles on the main head

One could argue by the definition of Caes that you linked to, that both could classified as caespitosa, but clearly they're not.

When I said As the picture shows, the side buttons appear to be on their own roots & not forming on the main head. I meant that the picture seemed to illustrate the heads were not aerole offsets, but rather offsets from the main head & they could be easily detached from the main head as they appear to have individual roots, much in the same way that all mature multiheaded caespitosa will have additional root structures other than the main head / singular tap root.

Example, shown in a 10x10cm pot

and its root structure:

I'd wager $ on those side buttons being on the same roots as the main head Wait, sorry, San P has already indicated so

Granted, it could be argued that the the roots of the offsets on the peripheral are part of the main head, but they can be separated from the main head & grow on their own, whereas a typical aerole offset has no roots whatsoever other than the main head / taproot. That was my point.

Now only the OP can confirm if the offsets in the picture are aerole offsets or not, but from this perspective it sure looks as if they are not. Only time will tell, much in the same way as the example above, in that the heads in the top portion of the picture clearly cannot be aerole offsets from the main head. They have roots of their own that can be easily separated from the main head's roots.

One final point to ponder....from this persons experience ALL jourd's are caespitosa and are easily propagated from the rooted offsets.

[KanJe]

Zelly, I've never seen a normal williamsii at such a young age have so many offsets regardless of how they have formed.

Doesn't this seem odd to you?

[Ace]

Some good points Zelly And I particularly appreciate that photo of the caespitosa roots - I have never seen such a detailed pic of one (nor have I grown caes).

No arguements from me - most of my research has been from online sources and this forum (and a bit of cultivation way back when), so I'm always learning. But I still reckon San P's one is L. williamsii v. caespitosa