Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
Jack

Lophophora Echinata

Recommended Posts

I took some pics last night at the CSSA meeting thanks to Kosta for allowing me to photograph his plants!

Varigated Lophophora Echinata

IMGP1167.JPG

IMGP1184.JPG

IMGP1185.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing the pictures Jack, very nice plant. But first things first.

That plant is not L. echinata, a plant generally considered a form of L. diffusa (this even though L. echinata has also been applied to L. williamsii). Most L. echinata you find these days are clearly L. diffusa. L. diffusa has white to occassionally yellow flowers, while L. williamsii flowers are generally pink.

The photos are rather of L. jourdaniana, a plant that is not known to have any natural habitat and of which I have argued is an unintentional intergeneric hybrid with a non-Lophophora species. I assume the cross is between L. williamsii and either a Mammillaria or a Turbinicarpus. L. jordaniana are well know for their spines and quick tillering (pup setting), items which have always led me to think the cross is with a Mammillaria, but I am not sure there is any way to be certain. I am though quite certain that this is not L. williamsii or L. diffusa (nor "L. echinata") and is not even a plant that has a representation in habitat. It is a collection hybrid of sorts whose provenance seems to be unknown. It likely had its origins in European collections.

Certainly one of the rarest in collections, but not suprising as it has been known for some time. Tell the owner it is L. jourdaniana and you heard it from someone well versed regarding Lophophora species and variations. :)

I might also add that I argue L. ceaspitosa is also a L. williamsii collection hybrid based upon it also having spines and tillering rapidly, and not having apparent representation in nature (this even though there are scattered representation of "carpet" Lophophora in nature, but which do not appear to bear the spines and the smaller flower size common to L. ceaspitosa). L. ceaspitosa are also self-sterile and give seed only when crossed with standard L. williamsii, something that also leads me to conclude it a hybrid as L. williamsii is readily self-fertile.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I might also add that I argue L. ceaspitosa is also a L. williamsii collection hybrid based upon it also having spines and tillering rapidly, and not having apparent representation in nature (this even though there are scattered representation of "carpet" Lophophora in nature, but which do not appear to bear the spines and the smaller flower size common to L. ceaspitosa). L. ceaspitosa are also self-sterile and give seed only when crossed with standard L. williamsii, something that also leads me to conclude it a hybrid as L. williamsii is readily self-fertile.

~Michael~

My l.caespitosa's are self fertile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really! Do you have photos, particularly with flowers, and also of areoles? Are there spines present on the areoles of young offshoots?? How many seed do the fruits produce and are there no other L. williamsii in the area that could cause cross pollination? I'm interested.

I noticed you didn't bring back up my assessment that the plant in the photos was L. jourdaniana. Do you agree? Flower color, something I din't mention before, is a dead give-away.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really! Do you have photos, particularly with flowers, and also of areoles? Are there spines present on the areoles of young offshoots?? How many seed do the fruits produce and are there no other L. williamsii in the area that could cause cross pollination? I'm interested.

I noticed you didn't bring back up my assessment that the plant in the photos was L. jourdaniana. Do you agree? Flower color, something I din't mention before, is a dead give-away.

~Michael~

I have williamsi and caespitosa in the same area, but a couple of years ago my 2 williamsii were so badley sun burned that they didnt flower for 2 years, in this time my caespitosa produced many fruits, with usually 2 seeds somtimes 3 in each. I think I have some flowers coming will take some pics when they are ready and will post them for u to look at.

I believe you are correct in stating that the plant pictured is a hybrid of lophophora and turbinicarpus.

Kosta mentioned the plant being called echinata and said some people call it jourdaniana, now what I do also know is the word echinata in latin means "with thorns".

But I do agree the plant going with current descriptions is jourdaniana

Maybe jourdaniana should really be called echinata. Does echinata you are describing have thorns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My l.caespitosa's are self fertile

Same.

I thought that caespitosa's were not, when i bought mine it was already flowering and a couple fruit formed.

Apo said that it musta been pollinated before it got sent to me.

But about 2 weeks later and it flowered again and got more fruit, and theres no williamsii around.

Is it possible for pollen to last a few weeks on the plant itself then pollinate?

I think i got 4 seeds from mine...

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, I find it quite interesting that both you and dodie have plants you are calling L. ceaspitosa that are apparently self-fertile. dodie, that your would give only four seed certainly indicates it fertilized itself as out-crosses produces many more seed. I really would like to see photos of both of your plants. Seeing that L. ceaspitosa has been sold as seed, when it likely has its origins as a collection hybrid, might indicate that the original clone has been crossed back into standard L. williamsii and continues to carry the trait of tillering, but also now reflects an ability to be self-fertile like L. williamsii.

In my original thread I qualified my comments by stating that certain standard L. williamsii are able to grow ceaspitose and in "carpets" of smaller buttons (I think this an issue of natural mutation), but I differentiate L. ceaspitosa from L. williamsii. The L. ceaspitosa clone that is prominent in the collections, as I am aware of it, is a plant that tillers quite rapidly, has small spines on the new pups (not to the length or stoutness of L. jourdaniana though), and has a smaller flower than standard L. williamsii.

I am of course interested in seeing photos of both your plants and if they match the L. ceaspitosa I am familiar with.

L. echinata was variously applied to L. williamsii and to L. diffusa, both of which lack spines, and is not an acceptable name. The name should not be simply moved over and put on L. jourdaniana either, as this would be just a poor use of the nomenclature system. The use of echinata with such taxa as Echinopsis or Echinocereus certainly indicate the spiney nature of these plants in general, but I would think the application of it to Lophophora had more to do with its being shaped like a "sea urchin" skeleton.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this discussion begs the question; are there Turbinicarpus species or seeds in horticulture that may be collection hybrids with Lophophora?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought some would find this of interest. Most all of the hybrids appear to have only Lophophora as the maternal plant as well as maintain distinct Lophophora features. There may be more hybrids than we know and it is worth looking at plant originating in collection and grown from seed a little closer.

~Michael~

post-19-1138212896_thumb.jpg

post-19-1138212896_thumb.jpg

post-19-1138212896_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that is the case.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be neat to cross two plants from a batch of hybrid seed and then see what variation shows up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Michael, would you say caespitosa seed that has been supposedly field collected (refering to Koehres) would in fact be a caespitose form of a williamsii (as he lists it I believe)? Something along the "carpet" form williamsii you mention above?

It seems that many of the plants he collected seed from exhibit the carpet form (as per the images on his site). I wonder why those would fail to earn the caespitosa moniker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't argued that there weren't natural populations of plants that grow ceaspitose. I actually have argued for them, but I am not sure they are equivalent to the long standing clone which for many many years was passed around only through clippings and which is very succulent and fleshy green, lacks much of a glaucus coating, bears minute spines, appears to maintain self-infertility, pups at rather prolific speed, and has flowers that bear short petals (giving on overall smaller flower in appearance). I am not overly familiar with Kohres' L. ceaspitosa and his web site isn't responding, but I wonder if these are the same as the clone I have argued is an intergeneric cultivation hybrid. I would like to see if there traits are different than the plant I argue as L. ceaspitosa.

Kohres plants certainly can be called ceaspitosa, but I am familiar with a certain clone that appears to have first gained that particular name and which seems to have existed prior to more recently collected material.

I really don't care to argue the matter much and don't care to be taken as the authority on the subject. I just am presenting what I have gathered over many years of study and putting it forward. I've been wrong before, but will hold my current position until I am better able to study the natural populations of ceaspitose plants or those which only seem to more recently become available. :blink:

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got inspired and found those photos, check out no 17 jauernigii (ha, a german name), doesn't the flower look very lophy?

http://www.cactus-art.biz/gallery/Photo_ga...rbinicarpus.htm

damm, this post made me so itchy to do some x breed's.

so if you got a flowering williamsii (or several) you want to trade, pm me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the cross breeding of loph with somthing not known to contain mescaline would allow the mescaline producing gene to be defined as dominant or recessive if it is indeed either. crosses could span many genera and the products would be very exciting :) use of GA could allow even more crosses.

very cool plant jack :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mexicali

Hi,

I felt it important to finally speak about this plant of mine...

The seed came from the Bouma region in Mexico - that's the collection data:

Lophophora williamsii v echinata Bouma.

It exists in low numbers (nowadays) and it IS a natural hybrid between L. williamsii and "a" Turbinicarpus (can't give away all my secrets here)...

The Caespitosa IS self fertile, I have photos of the plant's flowers and fruits. Thing is that the Caespitosa takes a LOT LONGER to reach full maturity (flowering stage) because most of its energy is directed into developing new pups rather than maturing...they all do eventually :) I have Caespitosas that flowered for the first time at 15 years of age (own roots - never grafted)...I know it's along time to wait for seed, but it happens eventually.

As far as doing experiments at crossing L. williamsii with other genera, there won't be much success with most of them...try crossing with the following plants: Obregonia and Strombocactus...they yield some interesting plants....there are a few Mamms that will give you some odd looking plants when crossed with williamsii and there is one Turbinicarpus (responsible for the spines on the Lopho).

Oh...there is a code for crossing either L williamsii or L diffusa v fricii with a particular Astrophytum variety....

So thank you for the comments you have made on this plant, I'll continue labelling it as the Echinata (old school) and you may call it a Jourdaniana. One more thing...Jourdan's nomenclature on the plant is not necessarily appropriate...same way as the Fricii....they named it after Frics but it really is a Diffusa (look at its chemical analyses)...so maybe they should be calling this plant L williamsii v Echinata fma Jourdaniana? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexicali said:

Hi,

I felt it important to finally speak about this plant of mine...

The seed came from the Bouma region in Mexico - that's the collection data:

Lophophora williamsii v echinata Bouma.

It exists in low numbers (nowadays) and it IS a natural hybrid between L. williamsii and "a" Turbinicarpus (can't give away all my secrets here)...

Forgive me for being particularly skeptical and critical, but it’s all in the name of science.

First off, by saying it is a “natural hybrid,” and one worthy of its own classification, that must mean that it is from an area in which both L. williamsii and the paternal Turbinicarpus species grow as wild “natural” populations together. But the most glaring problem is that there doesn’t appear to be a “Bouma region” of Mexico at all and the only references I can find to Bouma are either the names of individuals, or in reference to the Bouma National Heritage Park, Taveuni Island, Fiji.

This of course begs the question of who did you get the seed from that you grew the plant in question and who is the one who originally put forward the “collection data”? I assume you didn’t collect the seed yourself, and I certainly hope that you didn’t make up the name yourself. Certainly there is much left unanswered even this early in my inquiry.

As for the names L. echinata and L. williamsii v. echinata these are completely inane classifications, ones made by Croizat and Helia Bravo respectively purely upon a photograph by Schultes.

The term “echinata” never deserved recognition, and still doesn’t have it because of rules of nomenclature which without we have nothing but confusion. Croizat was then, due to a failure to regard L. diffusa as a distinct taxonomical species, to apply the name L. echinata v. diffusa to what is today known as L. diffusa. It is from this that we now understand most “L. echinata” in collections are L. diffusa (Croizat’s mistake having been corrected by Helia Bravo). To use these names carelessly without any understanding of the names origins and usage is only going to lead to further confusion.

Your last sentence above is thoroughly the most confusing as it suggest that you are keeping the alleged Turbinicarpus that created the plant in your picture a secret (to protect what I don’t know) when in fact if there was such a “Bouma region in Mexico” one would only need to look at the species that grew alongside L. williamsii to figure out what possible Turbinicarpus species could possibly be the paternal species to it.

The Caespitosa IS self fertile, I have photos of the plant's flowers and fruits. Thing is that the Caespitosa takes a LOT LONGER to reach full maturity (flowering stage) because most of its energy is directed into developing new pups rather than maturing...they all do eventually. I have Caespitosas that flowered for the first time at 15 years of age (own roots - never grafted)...I know it's along time to wait for seed, but it happens eventually.

Again, there are standard L. williamsii that do create ceaspitose plants, but I maintain that the historical L. ceaspitosa, though being of standard L. williamsii stock, is not the same plant as that which exists in natural populations.

As far as doing experiments at crossing L. williamsii with other genera, there won't be much success with most of them...try crossing with the following plants: Obregonia and Strombocactus...they yield some interesting plants....there are a few Mamms that will give you some odd looking plants when crossed with williamsii and there is one Turbinicarpus (responsible for the spines on the Lopho).

Oh...there is a code for crossing either L williamsii or L diffusa v fricii with a particular Astrophytum variety....

I of course would like to see any alleged plants you have produced having Obregonia (monotypic) and Mammillaria species (which ones?) as parents. As the article I posted already presents the case for crosses with Strombocactus (historically monotypic but with some apparent new “species”) I will assent to such a cross as possible. Again though you mention the Turbinicarpus cross, but again you seem to find the need to maintain it as sort of secret without any justification.

As for Astrophytum crosss I again would like some true presentation of the data. I am familiar with the recent photo that was posted, but it is said that it presents rib formations like the Astrophytum, but the photo gives no such feature. And nor do you present the Astrophytum species that the cross is allegedly made with.

So thank you for the comments you have made on this plant, I'll continue labelling it as the Echinata (old school) and you may call it a Jourdaniana. One more thing...Jourdan's nomenclature on the plant is not necessarily appropriate...same way as the Fricii....they named it after Frics but it really is a Diffusa (look at its chemical analyses)...so maybe they should be calling this plant L williamsii v Echinata fma Jourdaniana?

Feel free to continue to label the plant as you see fit, but I will continue to see such an action as being far from being old school as there is nothing, even within all the nomenclature confusion, which would place the plant into even the confused picture of L. echinata. Regarding “L. jourdaniana” it is clear that this is a completely invalid name for either a species, subspecies, or variety as it was improperly applied to L. williamsii from the get go (when first used) and only later applied to a particular plant by Habermann having rose-violet perianths, pistils, and filaments, without any explanation, and which has never been shown to have natural populations at all. I certainly do wish your picture was of the flowers open as it could without a doubt confirm if it is actually “L. jourdaniana,” a plant which clearly appears to be a cultivar and should in all likelihood be call “L. williamsii x ? cv.”

Lastly to L. fricii, this is a plant that certainly has distinguishing features from L. williamsii and has generally been though to be on the western fringes of L. williamsii populations. But the fact that Habermann’s testing (of a plant he in fact applied the name to without warrant) found inverse concentration of mescaline to pellotine as in L. williamsii does not at all mean that L. fricii should be placed as a variety of L. diffusa. There to date has been only one published account regarding L. fircii’s alkaloid, and that was by Habermann. Starha and others never conducted new examinations of plants claimed to be L. fricii and have only republished Habermann’s findings without and effort at confirmation, this even though Habermann never appears to have either made photographs or made a herbarium deposit of the “L. fricii” he tested. I have long wondered if Habermann simply had a mislabeled L. diffusa. To call the plant in your photograph “L williamsii v Echinata fma Jourdaniana” is the most ludicrous of ideas and does not further a true and proper understanding of these plants.

~Michael~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I felt it important to finally speak about this plant of mine...

The seed came from the Bouma region in Mexico - that's the collection data:

Lophophora williamsii v echinata Bouma.

It exists in low numbers (nowadays) and it IS a natural hybrid between L. williamsii and "a" Turbinicarpus (can't give away all my secrets here)...

The Caespitosa IS self fertile, I have photos of the plant's flowers and fruits. Thing is that the Caespitosa takes a LOT LONGER to reach full maturity (flowering stage) because most of its energy is directed into developing new pups rather than maturing...they all do eventually :) I have Caespitosas that flowered for the first time at 15 years of age (own roots - never grafted)...I know it's along time to wait for seed, but it happens eventually.

As far as doing experiments at crossing L. williamsii with other genera, there won't be much success with most of them...try crossing with the following plants: Obregonia and Strombocactus...they yield some interesting plants....there are a few Mamms that will give you some odd looking plants when crossed with williamsii and there is one Turbinicarpus (responsible for the spines on the Lopho).

Oh...there is a code for crossing either L williamsii or L diffusa v fricii with a particular Astrophytum variety....

So thank you for the comments you have made on this plant, I'll continue labelling it as the Echinata (old school) and you may call it a Jourdaniana. One more thing...Jourdan's nomenclature on the plant is not necessarily appropriate...same way as the Fricii....they named it after Frics but it really is a Diffusa (look at its chemical analyses)...so maybe they should be calling this plant L williamsii v Echinata fma Jourdaniana? :D

Welcome Mexicali! I am sure if you stick around you will bring some interesting discussion to the boards.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently got some Lophophora echinata. The guys swears they have pink flowers and are really Lophophora williamsii var. echinata. He also says that this is one of the most potent types of Lophophora...

I asked- "But isn't Lophophora echinata just another name for Lophophora diffusa?"

Here's what he said-

Echinata is not diffusa, diffusa don't occur in the U.S. so it can't be..echinata are from the east rim of big bend, I know cause my plants came from seed /plants that i collected from there 5 yrs ago in big bend park. if you need help with hybrids.. than check miles anderson articles on the subject, his father wrote the cactus family book, the #1 rated book on cacti, and He also has much ,much knowledge in echinocactus, google search mile's articles.

Who's Miles Anderson? Anybody got any good links?

What'd y'all think about this? What kind of Lophophora cacti live in this "Big Bend" park? What are the most potent strains of Lophophora?

Edited by Teotz'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently got some Lophophora echinata. The guys swears they have pink flowers and are really Lophophora williamsii var. echinata.

There is no 'Lophophora echinata' - see MSSmith's earlier posts. It is probably just L. williamsii (as indicated in the second part of this quote) and he may have ID'ed them using old classifications or found a name he liked and used it for his plants. There are plenty of people who use outdated names because they refuse to keep up to date (e.g. Mexicali above with 'echinata' or most of us here who still use 'Trichocereus' even though it is now out of date).

He also says that this is one of the most potent types of Lophophora...

That really is laughable... Next time you hear a cactus seller making that comment, please either take it with a grain of salt or walk away. It is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. All cacti are highly variable in their alkaloid concentrations - even clones that have grown under identical conditions can be different potencies.

Who's Miles Anderson?

No idea, but he might have been referring to Edward F. Anderson, who wrote 'Peyote: The Divine Cactus'?

What kind of Lophophora cacti live in this "Big Bend" park?

Never heard of it. There are a few maps which outline natural Lophophora ranges, either UTSE here, google or look in books (there are maps in the above book by Anderson). Perhaps it might have it in there?

What are the most potent strains of Lophophora?

See above comment about all being highly variable. There may be populations that have a slightly more preferable alk profile, however that might be better off answered by people who have sampled wild populations (the Huichol). There are also heaps of old threads here about methods of increasing potency (mostly in regard to trichs), but it also reflects how difficult it would be to find some legendary 'potent peyote'.

What'd y'all think about this?

Your seller uses outdated names and talks shit ('one of the most potent types of Lophophora'). If they look nice and your happy with them in the collection, then great! If you want a proper name, get some pics up and we'll attempt to get an ID happening :)

Edited by Ace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is really, really up on his stuff.

I ASKED about the potent ones... he never said anything about them until I asked. It was not for marketing.

He has many varations of Lophophora williamsii, I obtained the following types- var. echinata, var. pentagona, var. decipiens, var. texana and one that was just know as williamsii.

He claimed that the var. echinata, var. pentagona, var. texana and the regular williamsii are the potent ones.

Look check this out...

Capsicum chinense peppers

ALL those peppers are the species "Capsicum chinense"... They are ALL the same species!

But some are hot, some are sweet, some are white, some are red! See what I'm saying!?

Varations and human cultivation make HUGE differences!!! For example... most wild fruit plants are terrible! Same with wild corn (teosinte)! Only food crops which have been cultivated for 1000s of years have the biggest and best fruit! If the ancient peoples of Mexico turned Teosinte into Corn in just a couple 1000 years, just think what we could do to Lophophora?!

Edited by Teotz'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has many varations of Lophophora williamsii, I obtained the following types- var. echinata, var. pentagona, var. decipiens, var. texana and one that was just know as williamsii.

Would love to see some pics with their names to see how they differ and why they are labelled like that. I suppose it is similar to the Eileen clone of T. bridgesii or any other clone that seems to stand out a little from the mob. So should that mean that Eileen should be named 'T. bridgesii (or E. lageniformis) var. Eileen'?

He claimed that the var. echinata, var. pentagona, var. texana and the regular williamsii are the potent ones.

In comparison to what? A handful of Mamillaria? They are all L. williamsii, so of course they will be potent.

Edit - just noticed 'var. decipiens' was not one of the potent ones. If that's what you are referring to (another williamsii clone), again, all cacti show variation in their profiles, even within species and clones. The whole 'this one is better than that one' scenario is thrown out the window when they are in growth - they can make huge differences depending on their environments, etc. It is fair enough saying one pile of powdered cacti is stronger than another pile because they are not constantly changing as they grow.

Edited by Ace

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  

×