Lophophora Echinata

[Jack]

lophophora echinata is an old name for lophophora diffusa

[kadakuda]

as i understand the names are like this

way back when, there was only one specie, (now williamsii). this was named Lophophora echinata. Diffusa, once found and recognized as different was labeled Lophophora echinata var. diffusa

Lophophora echinata (syn. of L. williamsii)

Lophophora echinata var. diffusa (syn. of L. diffusa)

[jmmvl]

ha this is some old school teo stuff.... you ok man?

[Teotzlcoatl]

Ya I'm great!

I think Kadakuda is right... I know mine is williamsii, I just wish I knew a little more.

Hmm... the "Big Bend" National Park wasn't hard to find on google. Maybe I need to take a road-trip?

See now the "Big Bend" National Park is waaay far away from Diffusa's range... Hmm...

Edited October 24, 2008 by Teotz'

[zelly]

bleep

Edited November 18, 2008 by zelly

[blangschpeer]

Hmm... the "Big Bend" National Park wasn't hard to find on google. Maybe I need to take a road-trip?

I'm quite up there for a road trip, been planning one for the past 2 years to South America...

Call it wishful thinking, but if it's true that L.diffusa was distributed to "Big Bend national park" then that is proof of use of diffusa among native americans.

I know it's not very likely but I'm holding out for that elusive link that only dreams have whispered to me.

Maybe one day in a less restricted society we'll all be open to a less censored view point...

I'll let you all know what I'm whispered in person when I finally make the voyage to South America... Hopefully in less than 6 months...

[kadakuda]

you know Texas is in North America, right?

[jmmvl]

you know Texas is in North America, right?

that and there's no thru roads from SA to NA

[kushizm]

I have fam in texas, maybe I should go hunt

[kadakuda]

a friend made it from texas to panama in his jeep "thing"...took boats and "public" transport after that.

perhaps its possible to get there....but by god is it SLOW going, and pretty faaaaaar

anyone who has not read the kaktusy article and is interested in Lophophora, should probably track down a copy.

[Teotzlcoatl]

Lophophora williamsii's Range

I wonder why this only shows such a limited range?

Who has a REAL map of Lophophora's full range? I'd even be interested in ancient ranges.

Check this out!

Edited October 30, 2008 by Teotz'

[Inyan]

http://www.lophophora.info/

https://ssl.kundenserver.de/bestellung.ars-...d1b4973b6a0ed2d

The above two links have many pictures between the two showing various forms of L. jourdaniana. I like the one picture from the last site the best.

You can also find range information on the first to see where different localities arise as well as differences in phenotype found at each location. Personally, L. jourdaniana is one of the most esthetically pleasing species to me, but some of the others have such a nice bloom potential that they can't be overlooked by the serious cacti collector or would be hybridizer.

https://www.uhlig-kakteen.de/header.php

[trucha]

Leon Croizat published the name Lophophora echinata to refer to some plants from Texas and Coahuila.

Helia Bravo renamed it Lophophora williamsii var echinata to differentiate it from the plants in the Peyote Gardens.

It is now known that they are distinct genetically from each other. Some details about this are on the cactus conservation website and more will be following.

I don't offhand remember if it was Croizat or Backeberg (it was one or the other) who called diffusa Lophophora echinata var. diffusa but the subsequent dismissal of the original echinata intended has lead to Lophophora diffusa now being called simply Lophophora echinata mistakenly. This is prevalent in Europe where almost anything called Lophophora echinata is going to be a Lophophora diffusa.

I have Croizat and Backeberg here so will get something accurate posted.

[trucha]

Concerning Mexicali's beautiful plant I have to remain skeptical about its purported ID along with Michael.

Nothing shown or said in these forums so far suggests it is more than a monstrose form of a Turbinicarpus- perhaps lophophoroides?

How was the hybrid status established as opposed to it being simply a monstrose formation?

Are there flowering and fruiting photos available?

If you can furnish a couple of dried areoles there is the possibility DNA work could be done?

Teotz - That map outlines all of the known natural ranges of williamsii populations. They do not fill that area by a long shot since they are restricted to specific geological formations/types of soil and many former populations are now gone for a variety of reasons but all fall within it.

One problem with anyone giving precise locations is many people then go to visit and harvest. Its a crazy picture, so bad in fact that many new cactus (and orchids and bromeliads and more) finds have their locations suppressed now if they are felt to be rare. Its sad but needed at least one new find of Turbinicarpus is believed to have been completely wiped out by commercial European cactus dealers before it could be revisited for confirmation by botanists.

When Terry was doing research on the distribution of peyote he found that most of the early collection records in Texas were now worthless or gone due to someone stealing all of the vouchers of peyote out of the herbarium at UT Austin some years ago.

Edited December 29, 2008 by trucha

[Inyan]

Trucha,

If you could furnish some information regarding variations in different localities via pollen studies, dna, flower morphology, etc. Really, anything of interest... I'd be interested in poking through the websites or other resources myself. I'm not a pure purist as I like hybrids between different species, localities, etc. and information pertaining to them as I like diversity as well. I've always heard of various hybrids and seen a few black and white pictures, but I've never seen any hybrids that had any ongoing work done with them. Of course, parthenogenesis comes to mind with many of them as well as partial inclusion of the offending paternal pollen sources dna as not all hybrids actually incorporate the full set of dna from its pollen donor. At any rate, I like where your mind is at. Keep spreading some of this information around and perhaps I've simply overlooked some of your other posts as well so I'll keep looking. Diversity is the key though as hybrids between localities may be able to fit niches that neither parents fit in previously. Lophophora w. El Huizache x L.w. La Perdida are the types of crosses I'm most interested in as far as locality goes. My interest is obviously crossing the northern and southern forms as well as western and eastern forms. The idea being to utilize members for crossing that are as far apart geographically as possible... at least thats one of my ideas. Sure its not original and someone else has already done it, but its worthwhile to me. I've toyed with a few ways of doing this. The most obvious way is to collect many different location types from all area's and then utilize the pollen of a few northern types found in Texas, etc. to pollinate each and every locality. Southern types from the most southern or most distinct type could then be crossed back to all types as well with an emphasis on hitting the Texas locality types first with this type of pollen. What am I hoping to uncover? Who knows? Thats what makes it fun. Of course the idea of different localities being more suited for different soil types, etc. makes it worthwhile to make these crosses as well. Different environmental niches for seedlings, combined quantitative traits from different gene sources...

Edited December 29, 2008 by Inyan

[trucha]

I wish that I could. What little I know is the hybridizing results that have been reported by European growers such as Koehres, Bohata & Riha and the experiences of peyote growers in Texas with plants from far west Texas and from the Peyote Gardens. I don't think any of it was gleaned from the internet outside of email conversations. I mistakenly thought all peyote was self fertile until learning about the activities of the aforementioned European cactophiles not particularly long ago.

Some comments might have been in the Kaktusy Lophophora issue but it was not much. Or at least not the level of data you might want.

The CCI's work along this line of investigation is entirely DNA based. Some of it is done but much of it is still in progress. A lot of DNA samples have been collected for this purpose so its just a matter of time. I think they got genetic material from every major population of all known species (not including the new miniature one) with samples from multiple individuals within each one not just one individual. (also DNA sampling some smaller populations.) They are collecting only DNA samples not plants or pollen from these locations.

I think most of the details are on the website? More will be added either as fast as they are available or as fast as they get published whichever the case may be.

Terry et al. 2006 radiodating that manufactured peyote effigy from the Shumla Caves is also now there as a PDF btw.

Some genes truly worth incorporating in such a work as you describe might be this form/species/subspecies/whatever (Helia Bravo's L. williamsii var. echinata sadly now nearly orphaned as a name). While they are slower growing than var. williamsii they are far more cold and sun tolerant. Coahuila (or Cuatra cienegas) and West Texas (Presidio, Shafter etc.) would be good locales to look for in the collection data. Natural occurrence in Texas is located in the Big Bend but where people mean when they say this is west of the Big Bend national park not the park itself.

In the not distant future I am hoping that we all will have a lot better picture of the genus and its species.