Author: Keeper Trout

The "Platy" Opuntia species

Posted on by

The Genus Opuntia

Modified from Engelmann & Bigelow 1856

Modified from Engelmann & Bigelow 1856

Opuntia basilaris Engelmann & Bigelow

Georg Engelmann & Jacob Bigelow (1856) Description of the Cactaceae, 4 (5): 43-44.

Mescaline is present in trace amounts.

Opuntia-basilaris-HBG-plant

Opuntia basilaris

Common name: “Beavertail cactus”

Etymology: In reference to the branching arising from the base.

Distribution & occurrence: Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah. Also in Sonora, Mexico. Entry #213 in Piazzetti 1985.

Occurs in southwestern US and into northern Mexico (Sonora).

Opuntia-basiliaris_close_D

Opuntia basilaris

” humilis, articulis obovatis s. subtriangularibus glaucescentibus pubescentibus adscendentibus e basi proliferis, fere rosulatis ; foliis subulatis minutis erectis rubellis tomentum axillare vix superantibus ; pulvillis subconfertis fulvo-tomentosis setas gracillimas demum numerosissimas breves fulvidas et subinde aculeolos setiformes caducos gerentibus ; floris purpurei ; ovario obovato pubescente pulvillis plurimis (40-60) confertis fulvtomentosis instructo, sepalis 20-25 exterioribus oblanceolatis acuminatis, interioribus late obovatis cuspidatis, petalis sub-10 obov-orbiculatis retusis s. obcordatis saepe tenuiter mucronatis, stigmatibus 8 brevibus in capitulum conicum congestis ; bacca (sicca?) breviter obovata late umbilicata, seminibus magnis crassis subregularibus. (Plate XIII, fig. 1-5 & XXIII fig. 14)
On hills and in ravines from the Cactus Pass down the valley of Williams river to the Colorado, and to Mojave creek ; Mr. Schott met with it on the lower Gila ; and both he and Mr. Albert H. Campbell obtained the beautiful purple flowers of this plant in April and May, 1855. The habit of this plant is very different from any other of our Opuntiae, as the stout obovate or often fan-shaped or sometimes almost obcordate joints originate from a common base form a kind of rosette, resembling somewhat an open cabbage head. […] Joints 5-8 inches long, ½ inch in thickness, minutely pubescent ; leaves only 1 line in length, slenderly subulate, smaller than any other of our species […].
Pulvilli somewhat immersed, 4-6 lines apart. Flower of a beautiful and rich purple color, about 2½ inches in diameter, ovary nearly 1 inch long, crowded with 40-60 elevated areolae, with light brown wool and brighter brown bristles ; filaments not very numerous, leaving the inner base of the tube naked ; stigmata about 2 lines long, or less, apparently green. Fruit seems to be perfectly dry, short and thick; seeds 3 lines in diameter, nearly 2 lines thick, with a rather narrow but very thick rim, regular or sometimes quite irregular.” pp. 43-44, Engelmann & Bigelow 1856. (“Lines” refer to increments of o.1″.)

Opuntia-basiliaris-1489cropped

Opuntia basilaris

“c. : humilis ; articulis obovatis seu triangularibus glaucescentibus pubescentibus e basi proliferis; foliis minutis ; puvillis subconfertis fulvo-villosis setas gracillimas demum numerosissimas fulvidas et subinde aculeolos setiformes caducos gerentibus ; floris purpurei ovario obovato pulvillis plurimis instructo; stigmatibus 8 in capitulum congestis; bacca obovata late umbilicata (sicca?) ; seminibus magnis crassis subregularibus.
0n Williams’s River, the Colorado, and the Mojave, and down to the Gila : fl. April and May. – Habit very different from any other of our Opuntiae ; the stout obovate or fan-shaped joints (5 – 8 inches long) originate from a common base, forming a sort of rosette.Leaves only one line long, 4 – 6 lines apart ; pulvilli red-brown, somewhat immersed. Flower about 2½ inches in diameter; ovary with 40 – 60 pulvilli. Fruit apparently dry, thereby approaching the next section. Seed 3 lines in diameter, 2 lines thick.” pp. 298-299, Engelmann & Bigelow 1856 PAAS.

Opuntia-basilaris-2010-SR-greenhouse-0949

Opuntia basilaris

Very striking low growing plants. Usually grayish to bluish green, often reddened around areoles. Almost appearing spineless from a distance due to the clumps of short glochids and laterally wrinkled skin of the pads. A number of varieties exist with varying degrees of spination (some having only short lived glochids and no spines), pad forms, flowers and fruit.

Cerise flowers are most common. Other colors are known in some varieties. Flowering time variable. Usually after it gets warm. Flowers are usually 5 cm in diameter. Fruit is short and oval shaped. Large and thick seeds.

Several distinct varieties are recognized.

Opuntia-basiliaris-close

Opuntia basilaris

W. Hubert Earle 1980 and Lyman Benson 1982 and Curt Backeberg 1977; Schuster 1990, page 146, has a photograph of Opuntia basilaris in flower; in habitat next to Opuntia imbricata.

At least one variety, (var. cordata) is a horticultural cultivar.
Stays small and is fairly cold tolerant. Pizzetti 1985.

Opuntia-basilaris-2010-SR-greenhouse-0957

Opuntia basilaris

Did you catch the divergence of those plants from what was said in the original description?

Reported analysis

tlc did not indicate the presence of any alkaloids.

Tandem mass spectrometry detected mescaline at 0.01% by dry weight and

3,5-Dimethoxyphenethylamine at less than 0.01% dry weight.

Ma et al. 1986

It was not noted by Ma and coworkers which variety they analyzed.

Opuntia ficus-indica (Linnaeus) Miller

Philip Miller (1768) Gardeners Dictionary, Edition 8, no. 2, as Opuntia ficus-indica.
Caroli Linnaei (1751) Species Plantarum, 1: 468, as Cactus ficus indica.

The presence of mescaline was reported.

Opuntia-ficus-indica-flower

Opuntia ficus-indica

 

Common names: “Mission cactus” “Tuna” “Barbary Fig” , “Indian Fig”  “Prickly Pear” (US) [Many of the names are also applied to the fruit] “Barshoom” (Saudi Arabia)

Etymology: ficus-indica means “Indian fig” in reference to the edible fruit.

Distribution & occurrence: Origin unknown.

Believed to be tropical America (it is clear that it underwent intensive human development in Mexico). Cultivated widely and occasionally naturalized in the Mediterranean and temperate to tropical regions.

Has widely and commonly (and readily) hybridized with native
Opuntias in southern California but, in US, only common as an escaped plant in Hawaii.

Considered a weedy pest in Australia and parts of Africa where biological warfare in the form of deliberate cochineal and Cactoblastis releases have been employed.

Opuntia-ficus-indica-plant

Opuntia ficus-indica

“articulis ovato-oblongis, spinis setaceis. Indian Fig with oblong oval joints, and bristly spines. Opuntia folio oblongo media. Tourn. Inst. R.H. 239. Middle Indian Fig with oblong leaves.”
Miller 1753.

”  Cactus articulato-prolifer ; articulis ovato-oblongis, spinis setaceis.

Cactus compressus articulatis ramosus, articulis ovato-oblongis : spinis setaceis Hort. cliff. 183. Hort ups. 120 Roy lugdh. 280.
Habitat in America, calidiora. [saturn symbol]”
p. 468, Linnaei 1751.

Opuntia-ficus-indica-1

Opuntia ficus-indica

Shrubby plants, 3-5 ft., that may become tree-like (to 16.5 feet: Pizzetti; to 7 meters: Benson)

Trunk is woody up to 120 cm long and 120 cm in diameter, and much branched on upper part.

Oval or oblong thick and fleshy pads can reach 16 inches.

Small areoles normally lack spines but possess many yellow glochids which fall off with age.

A spiny type is also known to exist. It has 1-6 white spines [Note
39] per areole that can reach 4 cm but are usually shorter. Shorter spined plants are believed to have developed by Mexican horticulturalists.

Yellow to yellow-orange flowers are large; with pale yellow stamens.

Fruit is “pear-shaped and umbillicate at its apex”. It can be yellow, [pale yellow-green (de Castilla variety)], orange, red, reddish, purplish or striped. The pulp is normally the same color as the epidermis. [Ed.: When striped?]

Widely cultivated. Benson says “prized for their fruit since prehistoric times.” Claimed the best edible cactus fruit [ed.: this might be disputed].

Multiple cultivars exist; some are grown for fruit and some for their edible pads.

“Burbank’s Thornless” is a common and completely thornless type that is popular for food and landscaping. The war that was waged on Burbank by the USDA (and William Safford) over this particular selection bears mention but is outside of the scope of this entry.

[Flath & Takahashi 1976 note the flavor of the de Castilla variety to be mildly sweet and melon-like with little acid character.
They describe its flesh as pale-green and similar in texture to a ripe melon or kiwi. Interestingly they found it to share some volatile C-9 compounds which are also known to occur in cucumbers and certain melons and which are claimed responsible for the character of their flavor.]

A more detailed look at this plant can be found in Cactus Chemistry By Species.

Opuntia-ficus-indica-fruit

Opuntia ficus-indica

Benson notes that it requires deep soil and some subirrigation in order for it to escape and become a problem. Its entry into the gene pool of the hybrid swarms of southern California was due to the ease of insect cross pollination with other, already weedy, Opuntia species.

Benson 1982: Entry #46, pages 512-516, hybrids, 517-528. Detailed description and heavily illustrated with pictures. Color plates of spiny and spineless forms, color plates 56 and 54 respectively. Fruit: 55; Species with native and hybrid swarm: 57

and Pizzetti 1985: Entry # 219 (Includes picture)

Available varieties (offered by Koehres) include:
v. alba
v. rubra
v. sanguinea

Cultivation:
Requires strong sun and perfect drainage.

Pizzetti recommends a sandy or stony soil.

Opuntia-ficus-indica-padcloser

Opuntia ficus-indica

Water content:

Pads determined to contain 87.4% (young) and 85.4% (mature) water by weight. Kircher 1982

Opuntia-ficus-indica-pad

Opuntia ficus-indica

Published analysis:

Opuntia ficus-indica has been reported to contain:

Mescaline (%?)

N-Methyltyramine (%?)

Tyramine (%?)

El-Moghazy et al. 1982 analyzed Egyptian-grown plants but did not give the percentages recovered.

Lipid content determined to be 2.5% by dry weight: Kircher 1982

Unidentified lactone-forming acid (tlc) Kringstad & Nordal 1975

Isorhamnetin was found in the hydrosylate of flower pigments.
Arcoleo et al. 1961

β-Sitosterol Dawider & Fayez 1961; (0.04% dry wt. in flowers)
Arcoleo 1966

free Lauric, Myristic, Palmitic, Stearic and Oleic acids & also
the esters of Myristic, Palmitic, Stearic, and Oleic acid. Arcoleo 1966

Myrcene, Limonene & γ-Terpinene (terpenes: small amounts in the de Castilla variety fruit) Flath & Takahashi 1978. [They also reported other volatile compounds in the fruit including many alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters & hydrocarbons such as Toluene & Methylcyclohexane]

Fruit contains betacyanins: Betanin (major) & Isobetanin. Piattelli & Minale 1964a & 1964b.

Indicaxanthin (a betaxanthin) was reported in mature fruit (orange yellow variety) by Impellizzeri & Piattelli 1972. (Also in Piattelli et al. 1964a & 1964b)

Indicaxanthin & Betanin in fruit. Minale et al. 1965

Malic acid, Citric acid, Piscidic acid, Piscidic acid monoethyl ester (0.0433%), Piscidic acid diethyl ester (0.0333%) and several other nonvolatile acids in fruit. Nordal et al. 1966.

de Castilla fruit showed pH 4.85-6.3.

Citric acid was reported at levels of 0.084-0.12% according to Flath & Takahashi 1976.

 

Opuntia ficus-indica is widely used for food and is incorporated in many folk remedies (frequently based on the mucilaginous properties of the pulp).

In Bolivia, the pulp is used as a refrigerant and anti-inflammatory for healing intestinal and stomach problems. Parboiled, peeled leaves sprinkled with vinegar or camphorated alcohol is applied as a plaster to treat angina, malignant tumors and kidney pains.

It is said that if the leaf pulp is “abused” it causes diarrhea, lassitude, and weakness in all body parts as well as provoking profound dreams [Note 40].

Salcedo 1986

opuntia_ficusindica_thirsty

A thirsty Opuntia ficus-indica in Oz

Stetsonia

Posted on by

Stetsonia coryne (Salm-Dyck) Britton & Rose

Joseph Franz Maria Anton Hubert Ignatz Fürst zu Salm-Reifferscheid-Dyck (1850)  Cacteae in Horto Dyckensi Cultae, anno 1849, 205, as Cereus coryne.
Nathaniel Lord Britton & Joseph Nelson Rose (1920) The Cactaceae, 2: 64, as Stetsonia coryne.

Mescaline has been reported to be present in low concentrations.

 

Stetsonia-coryne-flowering

Stetsonia coryne

 

Common names: “Argentine Toothpick” Anderson 1998

Etymology: Coryne is derived from the Greek word for “Club”.

Distribution & occurrence: Northwestern Argentina

There is also a variety; Stetsonia coryne var. procera which occurs in mountainous terrain in Dept. Tarija, borders of the Provinces Gran Chaco and O’Connor and Palos Blancos in Bolivia. It has a scattered distribution.

 

Stetsonia-coryne-HBG-2006

Stetsonia coryne

“C. caule erecto subclavato glaucescenti-perviride 8 angulato, costis crassis superne tumido obrepandis, pulvillis subconfertis latis orbiculatis tomento lanuginoso albo instructis, aculeis exterioribus radianter patentibus, inferioribus 5 albidis (infimo breviore) superioribus 2-3 longioribus cum centrali solitario validissimo.
Caulis hueusque poll. 8-9 altus, diametro fere bipolicari, vix clavatus. Pulvilli lin. 6 distantes, lati, tomento lanuginoso, albidissimo muniti. Aculei 3 superi (intermedio saepe deficiente) lin. 9 longi, cum centrali patentissimo sesquipollicari nigri. “
p. 205, Salm-Dyck (1850)

(Describing a plant from the Berlin Botanical Gardens.)

 

Stetsonia-coryne-closer

Stetsonia coryne seedling ready for sale

Large and massive tree-like plant which can reach 5 to 8 meters. (& up to 10 feet across) Reti describes them as 3 meters tall and forming literal forests of cacti in the Cordoba Province of northwestern Argentina.

It has a short trunk up to 40 cm in diameter with many grey-blue branches (over 100). The branches have 8 to 9 ribs and can reach 6 cm in length.

7-9 spines, the longest being 5 cm (Can exceed 6 inches according to Anderson 1998). Spines are brownish yellow soon becoming white with black tips.

It bears white flowers; 12 to 15 cm.

Anderson 1998: 111 (nice picture of cultivated plant) and Britton & Rose 1920 2: 64-65. (Has an impressive photograph of an adult) and Backeberg 1977: 464. Photo on page 111 of Anderson 1998

Plants in cultivation are normally fairly small, single and rather
club shaped unless someplace they can be planted in the ground. The longest spine is black tipped and forms a beautiful contrast to the often dark bluish green skin.

var. procera is said to grow to 10 meters, with a skin that is milky green at first and has pink petals on the flowers. Backeberg 1977: 464. Chemical analysis of the variety has not been reported.

 

Stetsonia-coryne-HBG-2006-P1010773

Stetsonia coryne

Reported analysis:

Corynine was reported to be the major alkaloid according to Reti 1950 who said it was isolated in 1% yield by Reti et al. 1935.

(Agurell reported only on primary, secondary and tertiary amines. Coryneine is quaternary so he would not have seen it.

Using tlc and gc-ms, they found 1-10 mg. of alkaloids per 100 grams of fresh plant:

3-Methoxytyramine formed over 50% of the total

Tyramine was present as 10-50% of the total

N-Methyltyramine was present as 1-10% of the total

Mescaline was present as 1-10% of the total

3,4-Dimethoxyphenethylamine was present as traces.

Anhalonidine was present as traces.

Anhalidine was present as traces.

Agurell et al. 1971b

 

There is also a strange but useful list in Mata & McLaughlin 1982:

Mescaline (tlc, gc-ms) [minor component]

Tyramine (tlc, gc-ms)

Coryneine (tlc, gc-ms) [?] [This can’t be true as Agurell did not test for quaternary amines. He mentions this as being reported by earlier workers. See note farther below] 

Anhalonidine (tr.) (tlc, gc-ms)

Anhalidine (tr.) (tlc, gc-ms)

Oxycandicine (tlc, gc-ms) [?] [Reti et al. 1935 and Ludueña 1936 refer to it as “3-4-dioxyphényl-éthyl-triméthyl-ammonium” i.e. 3,4-Dihydroxyphenethylamine trimethyl cation which is synonymous with Coryneine, above. They used neither tlc nor gc-ms though. Microchemical methods were the closest tools of the day. [Note 43]]

N-Methyltyramine (tlc, gc-ms)

3-Methoxytyramine (tlc, gc-ms)

3,4-Dimethoxyphenethylamine (tr.) (tlc, gc-ms)

Mata & McLaughlin 1982 citing Agurell et al.
1971b and Novelli & Orazi 1950 and Reti 1950. Agurell et al. 1971b
is also cited by Ott 1993: 114.

Stetsonia-coryne-tip

Stetsonia coryne

 

Evidently the decision to analyze Stetsonia coryne for alkaloids
originally came about as a result of noticing that the decomposing
cactus stunk of methylamines.

Reti and coworkers isolated an alkaloid from it, promptly injected it into a dog, evaluated it on isolated tissues and a toad, and after noting the similarity of its effects to candicine decided it was a quaternary amine (I did not make any of that up!). Through pharmacological comparisons and subsequent chemical tests they determined it to be coryneine (which they called oxycandicine). This compound is the betaine of dopamine, i.e. 3,4-dihydroxy-N,N,N-trimethyl-β-phenethylamine.

Reti et al. 1935

Miles Anderson 1998 commented that, once large, this species is cold hardy in areas where freezing is mild and brief. It is said to branch more densely and grow “as wide as it is tall” if allowed to experience intense sun and frost while in the ground.
Once it is a larger plant it is said to handle brief periods down to 20°F.  That should not be anticipated to be true for younger specimens.

Stetsonia coryne is readily available as very choice specimens but it can be rather slow growing, cold sensitive if lacking adequate drainage or when growing in a container rather than being planted in the earth, and the species is prone to developing an orange basal rotting following overwatering.

Olmos 1977 has a color picture of a young plant on page 137. It is easy to understand why these beautiful plants are so popular with collectors.

 

Stetsonia-coryne-LoganBoskey

Stetsonia coryne
Photo by Logan Boskey

Lophophora fricii

Posted on by

Lophophora fricii Habermann

Vlastimil Habermann (1975) Kaktusy (Brno), 10: 123, as Lophophora fricii.

 

Most people who have studied peyote recognize this as an accepted species. The IPNI still lists it as an unresolved name. Someday that will change.

Lophophora-fricii-EricPhillips-c

Lophophora fricii from Quality Cactus

 

Reported to contain trace amounts of mescaline.

 
Lophophora-fricii-ParrasdelaFuente-Coahuila-flowering-d

Lophophora fricii from Parras de la Fuente, Coahuila flowering

Japanese name: Ginkangyoku

Origin: Limestone hills and soils near San Pedro, Coahuila, Mexico.  

Habitat: There are two wild forms of Lophophora fricii occurring some miles (~20) apart from each other.

One is a montane form that does not have as many offsets or form as large of planchas as the second one. It also tends to be flatter and look almost melted.

Lophophora-fricii-montane-CCI

Lophophora fricii montane form

The second one grows in silt flats and forms large clumps.
There is a photo said to be from Fric in 1924 and published in 1925 which is an article that I have not yet obtained. Images of that photo appearing online look very much like a single crown from the image below.

Lophophora-fricii-flats-CCI

Lophophora fricii in habitat in silt flats

Associated plants

A detailed list does not appear to exist yet for either population. The following can be observed in CCI photographs online:

Agave spp., Echinocereus stramineus, Jatropha dioica,, Larrea tridentata, Opuntia rufida & a Prosopis sp.

Lophophora fricii species nova Habermann

Corpus molle est coloris opace griseo-viridis usque subfulvi, plano globosum, cum apice modice depresso, ad 8 cm altum et ad 12 cm diametiens, solitarium, partim proliferans, cum radice rapiformi.
Costae humiles numero 8-14, iam ab apice evidentes, modice spiraliter tortae, 15-20 mm latae, evidenti fissura recta fere dividuntur. Podaria in costis fissuris saepe male evidentibus dividuntur. Areolae rotundae, 3 mm diametientes, 8-15 mm inter se distant, spinis vacant, sed fasciculos densos pilorum sericorum alborum ad 15 mm longos ferunt; in areolis veteribus partim circumrasae sunt. Pili formant in vertice tegumen densum, ex quo flores carmineorubri efficiuntur. Flores apicales, infundibuliformes, ad 25 mm longi et ad 25 mm diametientes. Pericarpellum nudum, subviride, tubus brevis, infundibuliforma dilatatur. Phylla perigonii exteriora lanceolata cum acumine firmo, externe fusco brunneo. Phylla perigonii interiora lanceolata plerumque in duabus seriebus, cum margine integro, 3-4 mm lata, 15 mm longa, coloris carmineorubri, cum paulo fusciore stria media. Stylus albus, 8-10 mm longus, cum stigmatibus 5 albis. Stamina multa, alba, cum antheris flavis, que stylo breviora sunt. Fructus carmineus, ad 20 mm longus, 4 mm latus, claviformis, nudus, cum residu.is siccatis perianthi in cauda. Semina galeriformia, 1,5 mm longa, 1,2 mm lata, cum hila basali alba in V-forman compresso. Funiculus in medio cavernae positus, micropyllum in rostratestae prope hilum evidens est. Testa glauca, nigra, tuberculis ovalibus tecta, que in vicinitate hili minuuntur. Embryon oviforme, modice applanatum, cum perispermio adiacenti.

Habermann 1974b

 
Lophophora-fricii-ParrasdelaFuente-Coahuila-flowering-c

Lophophora fricii from Parras de la Fuente, Coahuila flowering

Differuntur a L. williamsii colore corporis griseo-viridi usque subfulvo, forma costarum, flore carmineorubro, seminibus cum testa asperiore et hilo in V -forma depresso.

Lophophora-fricii-LasParras-epidermisclose

Lophophora fricii from Parras de la Fuente, Coahuila epidermis

Lophophora fricii Habermann

Habermann’s description gave stems as solitary or scarcely branching but its clear that nice clumps exist in the wild.

The crown is depressed-globose, with a sunken apex, reaching 12 (or more) cm. in diameter, and up to 8 cm. high.

Possesses large and fusiform (spindle-shaped) roots.

Epidermis is gray yellowish-green; 14 ribs (and more), areoles are nearly circular, 2-3 mm in diameter, 8-15 mm. apart, with tufts of dense, silky white hairs, without spines (a few miniature spines present in young seedlings only, soon breaking off); flowers from areoles near the apex of the stem, 25 mm long, 25 mm. in diameter, pelicarp naked, greenish; short tube, funnelform, pink, outer segments of pelianth oblanceolate, with greenish mid-stripe, inner segments oblanceolate, margin entire, 3-4 mm. broad, 15 mm. long, deep carmine red and velvet sheen; style white, stigma lobes 5, white; anthers yellow, filaments white, stamens shorter than style; fruit clavate, bare, with dried perianth remains, 20 mm. long, 4 mm. in diameter, red; seed black, papillate, 1.5 mm. long, 1.2 mm broad, hilum broad, V-shaped, micropylar aperture at rostrum close to the hilum; embryo ovoid. Mexico, Coahuila, limestone soils in the desert near San Pedro.
Holotype no. L-5.

Lophophora fricii is said to differ from Lophophora williamsii due to its larger size, a higher number of ribs, the color of the stem, and due to the color and sheen of the flowers.

Habermann commented that it was the only Lophophora that has seed with a V-shaped hilum. (L. alberto-vojtechii was later found to possess this feature as well.) “V-shaped” might need to be better, or at least more narrowly, defined as L. williamsii can also be said to have a v-shaped hilum. (See the hilum of the seeds in this L. williamsii image.)

Lophophora-fricii-seedling

Lophophora fricii seedling grown from Koehres seeds

Frič had found this plant and published a photograph in 1924 as Anhalonium sp. fl. rosea Frič. In Kreuzinger 1935 the image had become a rose-colored flower form of L. williamsii. 

Lophophora-decipiens_insert_fricii_B_1_5wide

A.V. Fric’s photograph

Drawn primarily from Habermann with additional comments based on imagery from the CactusConservation.com website.

Useful search terms for locating additional imagery online:

银冠玉（Lophophora fricii）

白花銀冠玉（Lophophora fricii f. albiflora）

银冠玉缀化（Lophophora fricii f. cristata）

 

Lophophora-fricii-EricPhillips-b

Lophophora fricii from Quality Cactus

 

Lophophora fricii Habermann
[Published in Habermann 1974b & 1975a]
Grey-green skin. Carmine red flowers. (None of the flowers encountered, in either pictures or specimens of plants presented as this species, have been carmine)
Collected in vicinity of San Pedro in Coahuila, Mexico by Denis “Dennis” Cowper.
Habermann 1974b [Thought by Habermann to be the red flowered species that Fric described but this was assumed based on locality, flower color and Fric’s photograph.]

Alberto V. Frič discovered Lophophora fricii during his 1923-1924 travels in  the U.S. and Mexico. Frič had referred to it as “Anhalonium sp. flora rosea.” in a photograph published in 1924. In 1935, he changed the name in the photograph to L. williamsii which may underlie the very commonly held notion that L. fricii is a synonym of L. williamsii. 

Habermann said that a few of Frič’s original collection survived the transport to Czechoslovakia but was not clear about what became of them or how he knew about them.

Roman Štarha analyzed a specimen of both Lophophora fricii and sp. Viesca with very similar results.

Fric had commented that the plants were quite large, reaching 40 cm in diameter, and possessing 13-21 ribs. He gave their place of occurrence as the southern slopes of limestone hills of the Sierra Bola, near San Pedro in Coahuila, Mexico.

Using that information, Cowper was able to rediscover a few plants at the same locality mentioned by Frič. It was those specimens that were used by Habermann for his description of L. fricii.

Fric, Cowpwer & Habermann

Alberto V. Frič, Denis Cowper & Vlastimil Habermann

Habermann described this plant as producing “carmine red” flowers. This might be a matter of color definitions but none of the flowers encountered, in either pictures or as living specimens, have been carmine)

(See some color samples below.)

carmine

Samples of “Carmine”: carmine, rich carmine & deep carmine

White flowered form of L. fricii

A white flowering Lophophora fricii growing in Oz

 

It is also clear that pink, dark pink and white flowers can occur in some L. fricii.

Lophophora-fricii-ParrasdelaFuente-Coahuila-flowering-a

Lophophora fricii Parras de la Fuente, Coahuila flowering

Lophophora fricii var. decipiens is a variety that is recognized in horticulture.

Lophophora fricii var. decipiens

Lophophora fricii var. decipiens

Lophophora fricii var. decipiens

Lophophora fricii var. decipiens

Care must be taken not to equate this with Crozat’s Lophophora decipiens as the “decipiens” morphology is a body form which can also readily be found in wild populations of Lophophora diffusa and also in some populations of Lophophora williamsii, and also in some presently ill-defined Mexican Lophophora populations that are shown in Bohata et al. 2005.  The use of “decipiens” as a horticultural varietal name, or as a description of this body morphology, is certainly sound enough but the attempts to assign Croizat’s L. decipiens as a synonym is, at best, on some shaky ground.

Lophophora fricii var. decipiens

Lophophora fricii var. decipiens with a darker flower

A noteworthy point was made by Gerhard Koehres that unlike the other Lophophora species, Lophophora fricii has fragrant flowers.

Koehres determined L. fricii to be self sterile.

Koehres was unable to pollinate L. fricii using pollen from L. diffusa and from L. koehresii. Using the pollen of L. fricii Koehres was however able to produce seeds in both L. koehresii and L. williamsii El Huisache. 

Kada reported a failure to fertilize L. fricii after 7 attempts involving L. diffusa pollen, 13 with L. williamsii and 18 L. koehresii pollen but reported 1 apparent success for an attempt involving a self-fertile L. williamsii. Kada also reported a lack of success using L. fricii pollen to on L. diffusa, L. koehresii and L. williamsii.

 

Lophophora-fricii-Oz

Lophophora fricii in Oz

 

Reported chemistry of Lophophora fricii:

Reported to be inactive in human bioassay at 3 gm/kg by Habermann.
Pellotine (Major) Habermann 1978a (From Štarha n.d.); Anderson 1980 cited Habermann 1977 & Habermann 1978a; [1.819% (± 0.212) (from Štarha 1997 citing Habermann 1978a)]; (65.2% & 65.5% of total alkaloid* [Štarha 1997 cited Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996])
Mescaline (Minor) Habermann 1978a (From Štarha n.d.); Anderson 1980 cited Habermann 1977 & Habermann 1978a; [0.014% (± 0.009) (from Štarha 1997 citing Habermann 1978a)]; (0.9% & 1.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997); Aragane et al. 2011 and also Sasaki et al. 2009 reported finding no mescaline — despite 1) performing additional analysis potentially supporting L. fricii as a separate species and 2) despite having obtained their L. fricii specimens identified by their suppliers to be Ginkangyoku (i.e. L. fricii), they published their examples as being nonmescaline containing variants of L. williamsii. This meant that their results do not yet show up on most people’s radar as representing an analysis of Lophophora fricii. 
Tyramine (0.1% & 0.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
N-Methyltyramine (0.1% & 0.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Hordenine (0.3% & 0.4% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
N-Methylmescaline (0.1% & 0.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalinine (2.7% & 2.2% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
O-Methylanhalidine [Note 5] (?) (2.3% & 1.9% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalidine (1.0% & 1.0% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalamine (0.2% & 0.7% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalonidine (25.9% & 24.9% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalonine (0.2% & 0.2% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Lophophorine (0.1% & 0.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Ed.: There is a question on this material. Please note that Štarha 1997 (in Grym) only cited Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996 but some entries in  Štarha 1997 are not in Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996. They may refer to otherwise unpublished material?
*The 2 figures refer respectively to GR 1086 & PR 3293; both were cultivated.
See GRYM 1997 for a discussion and photos.
See also Habermann 1975a for a discussion of this ‘species’ (in English.)

 

Lophophora-fricii-AKA-roseiflora

“Lophophora sp. roseiflora”
AKA Lophophora fricii

 

Lophophora-tesselatus-0511-crop-enlargement

Lophophora “tesselatus“
AKA Lophophora fricii

Lophophora “tesselatus” would apparently have been proposed to be the name for this Mexican species had its description as L. fricii not been published by Habermann.
Lophophora sp. Viesca RS 404

 

Lophophora-viesca-Europeseed-RS404

seedling of Lophophora “sp. Viesca” RS404

Reported analysis of Lophophora sp. var. Viesca

from Viesca, Mexico

Also spelled. sp. Vieska in European cultivation. (This has been determined to be Lophophora fricii)

(Wild-collected in Mexico) Sample was 7.6 gm dry (Total alkaloid concentration not included)
Tyramine (0.03% [± 0.01] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (0.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
N-Methyltyramine (0.08% [± 0.01] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (0.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Hordenine (6.47% [± 0.29] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (6.5% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
N,N-Dimethyl-3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenethylamine (0.02% [± 0.01] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996
N-Methyl-3,4-dimethoxyphenethylamine (0.04% [± 0.01] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996
Mescaline (1.01% [± 0.25] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (1.0% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
N-Methylmescaline (0.09% [± 0.01] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (0.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
3,5-Dimethoxy-4-hydroxyphenethylamine (0.77% [± 0.09] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996
O-Methylanhalidine [Note 5] (0.07% [± 0.01] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (0.9% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalinine [Note 9] (0.45% [± 0.06] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (0.5% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
O-Methylpellotine (Trace of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996
Anhalidine (0.14% [± 0.in] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (0.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalamine (6.94% [± 0.30] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (6.9% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalonidine (5.32% [± 0.32] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (5.2% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Pellotine (76.28% [± 1.92] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (76.3% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalonine (0.10% [± 0.02] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (0.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Lophophorine (0.08% [± 0.02] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; (0.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Color pictures and a description can be found in Grym 1997.

Lophophora jourdaniana

Posted on by

Two images have been removed from this page pending confirmation that their identification was accurate. They will return to this website as soon as that information becomes available from their grower.

 

Lophophora jourdaniana Habermann

Also encounterable as Lophophora williamsii f. jourdaniana and  Lophophora williamsii var. jourdaniana in horticulture.

  This is not considered to be an accepted species. Or at least, it can’t be considered as such without someone first linking it to an actual population of wild plants.

Lophophora jourdaniana seedling flowering

Lophophora jourdaniana grown from a European seed

Reported to contain mescaline in analysis and human bioassay.

Origin: These can be assumed to have originated in Mexico. Originally this appeared with a few different points of entry as material which had been culled out of lots of Mexican L. williamsii based on the unusual flower color. Exists in Europe both as a normal and as a cristate form according to Kreuzinger’s catalog. Habermann’s description was based on a plant from Mexico provided to him by Ühlig (the German cactus house) so it might be assumed that whoever it was in Mexico that provided Ühlig with their plants was familiar with where the material originated?
Habitat: Unknown but assumable to be similar to that of L. williamsii.
 
Lophophora jourdaniana seedling with fruit

Lophophora jourdaniana grown from a European seed

Lophophora jourdaniana species nova
Habermann 1975a:

“Corpus molle, coloris coeruleo-viridis, plano globosum, cum apice modice depresso, ad 6 cm altum et ad 7 cm diametiens, ad basim abunde proliferans, cum radice rapiformi. Costae humiles, numero 7-8, modice spiraliter tortae, dividuntur fissura recta seu undulata. Podaria humilia in costis dividuntur fissura transversa brevi, solum in suprema costa conspicua. Areolae rotundae, 2-3 mm diametientes, 12-16 mm inter se distant. Areolae in caulibus iunioribus ferunt 4-8 exiguas firmas spinulas 2-3 mm metientes. Spinulae illae per nonnullos conservantus. In caulibus adultis areolae ferunt fasciculos densos pilorum sericorum alborum, ad 10 mm longorum, qui in planta suprema tegumentum densum formant. Flores infundibuliformes, ad 15 mm longi et 15 – 20 mm diametientes, ex areolis apicis emergunt. Pericarpellum nudum, subviride. Tubus brevis, infundibuliformiter dilatatur. Phylla perigonii exteriora lanceolata cum acumine firmo et stria media viride fusca. Phylla perigonii interiora lanceolata, cum margine integro, 3-4 mm lata, 10-14 mm longa, coloris roseo-violacei, cum stria media fusciore. Stylus roseus, 5 – 8 mm longus, cum 4- 6 stigmatibus albis. Stamina multa, cum filaminibus roseo-violaceis et cum antheres flavis stylum partim superant. Fructus roseus, 15 – 20 mm longus, 4 mm latus, claviformis, nudus, cum residuis perianthi siccatis in cauda. Semina galeriformia, 1,5 mm longa et 1,2 mm lata, quorum foramen micropylare vicinum hili basali cordati est, non differunt evidenter ab seminibus L. williamsii (Lem.) Court. Testa nigra, tuberculata. Embryon oviforme, modice applanatum, cum perispermio conspicuo.

Patria incerta, vero simile Mexico septentrionale.

Holotypus in herbario V. Habermanni (Facultas medica universitatis Carolinae, Plzeii) sub numero L-2.

L. jourdaniana non est cleistogama – non. foecundatur pollene floris eiusdem neque successerunt conati Lophophoram jourdanianam pollene Lophophorae williamsii (Lem.) Coult. aut eiusdem varietarum, neque pollene Lophophorae diffusae (Croiz.) Bravo, neque Lophophorae fricii (Habermann) foecundare.

L. jourdaniana ab lophophoribus ceteris descriptis roseo-violaceo colore perianthi, styli, filaminum staminum atque spinulis areolarum caulum iuniorum longae persistentibus differt.”

 Lophophora-jourdaniana_c
 

Lophophora jourdaniana Habermann

[Published in Habermann 1975a & 1975b]

Habermann 1975b pp 159-160:

“ Stem branching, depressed-globose, with sunken apex, up to 7 cm. diameter, 6 cm. high, bluish-green; roots large and fusiform; ribs 7-8, areoles nearly circular, 2-3 mm. diameter, mature stems with tufts of silky white hairs, without spines; young stems and branches with 4-8 feathery spines 2-3 mm. long, white, persistent for several years; flowers from areoles near the apex of the stem, 15 mm. long and 15-20 mm. diameter; pericarp naked, greenish, short pink tube funnelform; outer perianth segments oblanceolate, with greenish mid-stripe; inner segments oblanceolate, margin entire, 3-4 mm. broad, 10-14 mm. long, violet red with deep red mid-stripes; style pink, 5-8 mm. long; stigma lobes 4-6, white; stamens with pink-violet filaments and yellow anthers, longer than the style; fruit clavate, bare, 15-20 mm. long, 4 mm. in diameter, red, with dried perianth remains; seed black, papillate, 1.5 mm. long, 1.2 mm. broad, hilum broad, micropylar aperture at rostrum close to the hilum; embryo ovoid. Northern Mexico, limestone soils; exact locality not known. Holotype no. L-2.”

“ The habit of L. jourdaniana seems very close to that of L. williamsii at first glance, however there are some quite different features, such as long persistent spines at young stem areoles and the red perianth, style and filaments of the flowers.

 

The main features for recognition of Lophophora jourdaniana are small and persistent spines on young areoles and violet red flowers. Habermann 1975b
The use of the specific name “jourdaniana” is potentially misleading (and invalid) as it had been previously used for horticultural offerings. Initially ‘jourdaniana’ appeared as a name in an old Pierre Rebut catalog (Rebut Catalogue de Cactées et Plantes Grasses Diverses). I have not yet seen a copy.

Prior to Habermann’s usage there were 4 previous uses of this specific name in the literature. All were published in vague and unclear accounts (mostly nomen nudum);
1. Anhalonium jourdanianum (Rebut) Lewin [i.e. Anhalonium jourdanianum Rebut from the Rebut catalog; published in Lewin 1894], Anhalonium jourdanianus Hort. (in Rouhier’s 1927 Trav. Lab. Mat. Med. Phar. Galen 17:51 AKA Le Peyotl],
2. Echinocactus jourdanianus (Rebut) Rebut [Rebut 1905], Echinocactus jourdaniana (Rebut) Rebut ex Maass [in Maass 1905], Echinocactus lewinii (Hennins) Schumann var. jourdaniana Michaelis [Michaelis 1896]
3. Lophophora jourdaniana Kreuzinger syn. violaciflora [Kreuzinger1935]
4. Lophophora jourdaniana Lewin appeared in Kakteenkund 1937 5: 190] None can be linked to Habermann’s material with any degree of certainty. More recently there was the description as Lophophora williamsii f. jourdaniana Hansen [Hansen 1996]

Habermann’s assignment referred to a rose-violet flower color appearing in European imported & cultivated plants (arising from within lots of material identified as L. williamsii), while his actual description (and type) was based on a plant of Mexican origin in Europe which had been purchased by K.H. Ühlig (as L. williamsii) Habermann felt this plant looked like the same material as was already in European collections (again arising from within lots designated L. williamsii originating from Mexico or else what had been propagated in Europe from that material)
Therefore, this name, as Habermann described it, should be extended with caution to any earlier material referred to by the same name.

 

   

Habermann makes a baffling statement but perhap he simply mispoke:

“Moreover, this species is not cleistogamous and all attempts to achieve fertilization with pollen of other Lophophora species have failed as yet.”

Habermann’s comment on their unability to cross-pollinate this “species” with L. williamsii, its varieties, L. fricii or L. diffusa is countered by horticulturalists who have noted no such difficulty, for example M.S. Smith 1998, or who have commented on provisional difficulties (see http://www.cactus-art.biz)

Lophophora-jourdaniana_e

Lophophora jourdaniana is not widely accepted and is rejected by Anderson. See Anderson 1980.

Despite it’s origin being as individuals culled out of unrelated lots of imported L. williamsii those persistent spines on young areoles, and the reddishness of petals, style and filaments merits a closer look. At least four separate clone lines are being propagated and maintained as such in Europe.

It is not clear how many exist but clearly they entered horticulture over a fairly broad period of time so keeping eyes open for wild plants seems prudent.

It might simply be a difference in how one defines colors but this author has never witnessed a jourdaniana with flowers that were “violet red with deep red mid-stripes.” 

It is commonly proposed that Lophophora jourdaniana shows spines due to being a hybrid. This appears to lack any actual study but it would seem to be warranted. What may be noteable in the proposals is a lack of a plausible pollen parent.

Lophophora-jourdaniana_aa

 

Lophophora jourdaniana clones from Europe (JM) 

Lophophora-jourdaniana_EU_a

clone 1

Commercial offering in USA.

 Lophophora-jourdaniana

 Useful search terms for locating imagery online:

 乔丹乌鱼玉 & also 有刺烏羽玉（Lophophora jourdaniana)

Analysis reported for Lophophora jourdaniana

Habermann reported it to be active in human bioassay at 3 gm/kg.
Mescaline (Major) Habermann 1978a (From Štarha n.d.): Anderson 1980 cited Habermann 1977 & 1978a; [0.690% (± 0.105) [Note 6] Štarha 1997 cited Habermann 1978a]; (31% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Pellotine (Minor) Habermann 1978a (From Štarha n.d.): Habermann 1980 cited Habermann 1977 & Habermann 1978a; [0.710% (± 0.089) [Note 7] Habermann 1978a (from Štarha 1997)]; (17.8% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Tyramine (0.6% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
N-Methyltyramine (0.5% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Hordenine (2.9% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
N-Methylmescaline (3.2% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalinine (0.6% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
O-Methylanhalidine [Note 5] (?) (0.8% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalidine (3.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalamine (1.7% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalonidine (20.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Anhalonine (1.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
Lophophorine (1.4% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997)
[Ed.:? Please note that Štarha 1997 (in Grym) only cited Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996 but some entries are not in Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996. They may refer to otherwise unpublished material ? The values refer to material cultivated in Germany.]
See Grym 1997 for a discussion and photos.
See also Habermann 1975s for a discussion of this ‘species’ (in English.)

Lophophora koehresii

Posted on by

Lophophora koehresii (Říha) Bohata, Myšák & Šnicer

aka Lophophora diffusa (Croizat) Bravo var. Koehresii Říha

Jan Říha (1996) Kaktusy (Brno), 32(3): 70, as Lophophora diffusa var. koehresii
Jaroslav Bohata, Vojtěch Myšák & Jaroslav Šnicer (2005) Kaktusy (Brno) Special Issue, 2: 20, as Lophophora koehresii

Most people who study Lophophora consider L. koehresii to be an accepted species. The IPNI still lists it as an unresolved name. At some point that will change.

Lophophora-koehresii-flower-CCI-a

Lophophora koehresii flower in habitat;
Copyright Cactus Conservation Institute; from their website

 

Reported to contain only traces of mescaline.

Lophophora koehresii habitat CCI

Lophophora koehresii in habitat;
from Cactus Conservation Institute

 

Origin: Las Tablas, San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

Habitat: Alluvial silt flats that are occasionally flooded.

 

Lophophora koehresii flower

Lophophora koehresii flower

 

as Lophophora diffusa var. koehresii Říha

Corpus simplex, pars eius viridis 40-45 mm lata et 20-30 mm longa, pars subterranea 35-40 mm lata et 100-130 mm longa, brunescens, in radices crassos, carnossos, sensim transiens. Corpus viride, supraterraneum in costas 5-6 (postea usque 7) divisus, costea ca. 2 mm altae, et 5-7 mm latae, diffuse undulatae, epidermis caeruleo-viridis. Areola circularis, 2-3 mm magna, albo-Ianata. Perianthi phyla cremo-alba usque rosea, ad 25 mm longa et 3 mm lata, oblanceolata, integrrima interdum apice leviter fimbriata, stria media obscura praedita. Organa reproductionis cum varietatae typica conformia. Fructus claviformis usque pyriformis, tantum ca. 10-15 mm longus et 4-5 mm latus. Samen ca. 1,1 mm magnum, globosum, testa nigra, reticulata.

Habitat: prope Cd. Las Tablas, San Luis Potosi, Mexico, in altitudine ca. 1000 m ubi solum lutosum tumulosum, planum.

 

Lophophora koehresii seedlings

Lophophora koehresii seedlings

This has been variously described as a variety of L. williamsii and of L. diffusa or an intermediate between the two. [Also appearing as Lophophora sp. Rio Verde and as L. viridescens/L. diffusa viridescens] It shows larger flowers with thin petals and is distinct from either Lophophora species. The flowers resemble variant forms sometimes seen in Lophophora williamsii but the morphology, chemistry and DNA work all place it much closer to L. diffusa.

Bohata & coworkers fairly recently renamed it as a species.

Lophophora-koehresii-flower-b

Lophophora koehresii flower

Edward Anderson encountered this in the field but confused it for L. williamsii in his thesis, when commenting on that species can sometimes be found growing in silty flats that are flooded for part of the year. L. williamsii is not found growing in silty flats, those turned out to be L. koehresii.

Lophophora-koehresii-CCI-b

Lophophora koehresii in habitat;
from Cactus Conservation Institute

Associations: A detailed listing does not appear to exist yet. The following can be observed in the photographs online at the Cactus Conservation Institute website:

Ariocarpus kotschoubeyanus
Chamaesyce spp.
Coryphantha sp.
Dyckia sp.
Echinocactus horizonthalonius
Echinocereus pentalophus
Echinocereus spp.
Echevaria sp. or similar
Kalanchoe sp.
Larrea tridentata
Mammillaria magnimamma
Manfreda sp.
moss
Myrtillocactus geometrizans
Opuntia engelmannii
Opuntia leptocaulis
Porlieria angustifola
Prosopis sp.
Sedum sp.
Stenocactus spp.
Stenocereus sp.
Tiquilia spp.
Viguiera sp.

Lophophora-koehresii-seedling-a

Lophophora koehresii seedling from European seed

Analysis of Lophophora koehresii

[NOTE 8]
(Wild-collected in Mexico) Sample was 2.4 gm dry (Total alkaloid concentration was not included in the acount)
Tyramine (0.04% [± 0.01] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [0.1% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]
N-Methyltyramine (Trace of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [0.1% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]

Hordenine (0.37% [± 0.05] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [0.4% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]

N-Methyl-3,4-dimethoxyphenethylamine (0.01% [± 0.01] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996

Mescaline (1.32% [± 0.35] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [1.3% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]

N-Methylmescaline (0.07% [± 0.02] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [0.1% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]

3,5-Dimethoxy-4-hydroxyphenethylamine (0.10% [± 0.02] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996.

O-Methylanhalidine (0.07% [± 0.01] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [?0.8% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997 [Note 5]
Anhalinine [Note 9] (0.44% [± 0.07] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [0.5% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]
O-Methylpellotine (Trace of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [0.1% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]
Anhalidine (Trace of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [0.1% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]
Anhalamine (4.74% [± 0.32] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [4.7% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]
Anhalonidine (3.45% [± 0.82] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [3.5% of total alkaloid Štarha 1997]
Pellotine (88.39% [± 2.12] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [88.4% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]
Anhalonine (0.12% [± 0.02] of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [0.1% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]
Lophophorine (Trace of the total alkaloid content) Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996; [0.1% of total alkaloid; Štarha 1997]
Lophophora-koehresii-
Color pictures and a description can be found in Grym 1997. [Říha 1997 is cited for the description)

 

 Useful synonyms to use as search terms for locating more imagery online:

考氏乌羽玉 & also 顯疣烏羽玉（Lophophora koehresii）

Lophophora-koehresii-seedlings-b

Lophophora koehresii seedlings

 

Lophophora echinata

Posted on by

Lophophora echinata Croizat

This name confusingly encompasses both Lophophora williamsii var. echinata and Lophophora echinata var. diffusa
people involved with the name echinata

Léon Croizat, Helia Bravo-Hollis, Curt Backeberg & Del Weniger

Lophophora echinata is one of Léon Croizat’s creations. It is not a good name despite my commonly using it for a peyote occurring in the Trans-Pecos. I’ll apologize in advance for that and promise I will find an alternative as soon as possible.
As we explore this name it is a good idea to keep Croizat’s decipiens in mind as both names may well be referring to the same plant, at least when invoking the name as it was viewed by Del Weniger. More comments will be found under L. decipiens.
Lophophora williamsii echinata in Terrell County

Lophophora williamsii looking rather ‘echinata‘ in Terrell County

 

“Lophophora echinata sp. nov. typica var. nov.

Planta viridi-glauca, culta saepius ad 10-13 cm. lata, unicipite. Podariis 5-6-lateris, conicis, in costis veris haud confluentibus ca. 2-3 em. longis latisque, late longitudinaliter conniventibus, eximie penicillatis. Flore in anthesi ca. 2-2.5 cm. lato, albido ca, 2-2.5 cm. longo; laciniis externis ca. 3-seriatis, apiculatis, pallide-viridibus demum saepius dorso brunneo-costatis: laciniis internis in serie duplici ca. 30; staminibus numerosis, filamentis albidi , antheris pallide luteis, parvis; stylo ca. 10-13 mm. longo, albido, apice in stimgatibus [SIC: stigmatibus] ca. 7 partito. Fructu elongato subtereti ca. 1-2 cm. longo, saepius pallide roseo, perianthii reliquis caducis. Semine generi.

Typus: “Lophophora Williamsii” sensu Schultes in Cact. Succ. Jour. 12:180 fig. iii 1940, excl. descr. syn. omn.”

Croizat 1944

Notice that an *illustration* was designated as the Type for Lophophora echinata Croizat.  That photograph was from Schultes 1937 (also 1938 & 1940). 

Schultes' peyote plant

Peyote plant from Schultes 1937, 1938 & 1940

 

Much confusion is referrable to here.

The most famous of course is Croizat’s echinata. In the previous edition of this work I, for reasons still unclear to me, had erroneously believed that Croizat referred to something different due to his odd designation of a photo of Schultes as his type, a locale of Texas assigned by Bravo and the brief appearance of L. williamsii var. echinata Bravo. These had lead me to conclude that what Leon Croizat and Del Weniger called “echinata” were referring to the same plant (Croizat as a species and Weniger as a variety of L. williamsii.) I now doubt that.

It is still not clear to me just what the story is on the motivation underlying origin of Croizat’s echinata. Croizat had designated yet another photographic image as a Type specimen, this time of that of the peyote shown above; published by Schultes in 1937. Schultes plant looks like a typical williamsii from South Texas, Schultes article was mainly on peyote use by NAC members, and its white flower could be natural in occurrence even if unusual.

Croizat next started a lasting mess when creating “diffusa” and placing it as a variety of Lophophora echinata.

Bravo compounded it when soundly elevating Lophophora diffusa to being recognized as a species in its own right but recognizing echinata temporarily as a variety of Lophophora williamsii.

Backeberg took it a step further when largely respecting Bravo’s Lophophora diffusa in name but then creating Lophophora lutea for what was clearly Lophophora diffusa from Queretaro.

Perhaps it also reflects the disdain many growers have for trinomials, leading to many plants in horticulture that were originally named L. echinata var. diffusa being renamed L. echinata. Most of the plants grown in Europe (and maybe most elsewhere) as L. “echinata” are for this reason L. diffusa although it is also clear that there is plenty of what we will be referring to as L. williamsii echinata sensu Weniger in Europe.

What is being discussed here as Lophophora williamsii echinata is sensu Weniger rather than sensu Croizat This plant is actually fairly well represented in European horticulture for a couple of reasons, one (according to Bohata and coworker’s wonderful Lophophora special issue of Kaktusy) is that its greater cold tolerances have enabled it to survive heating oil shortages and other winter problems experienced by European cultivators better than a typical L. williamsii. The other appears to be a partial overlap with what was being sold as Anhalonium Lewinii during its early years when the commercial plant collectors must surely have been scrambling to fill the demand created by Hennings’ Frankenstein (A. lewinii is discussed in more details elsewhere here).
Weniger’s echinata is discussed in more details in the entry for L. williamsii and is not otherwise seperated from it.

I’m still at a loss, however, to know just where and how Croizat’s name echinata came to be associated with Weniger’s view of this name.  Bravo seems to be the bridge but eventually she did not agree. I’m presently only guessing that she ran into the same problem as everyone else; peyote is so variable that the ranges of features between populations overlap.

Most noteably Croizat described a plant with white flowers and the body as being glaucous-green, 10-13 cm in diameter, having having 5-6 podaria not organized into well defined ribs (“in costis veris haud confluentibus”). This is often mistakenly assumed to be Lophophora diffusa due to the white flowers. However that conclusion seems erroneous without more information being included.

Lophophora-williamsii-echinata-PresidioCo-9473

Lophophora williamsii echinata in Presidio County

In contrast to that, or to a typical Lophophora williamsii, Weniger’s “echinata” is a sometimes larger (sometimes up to 5″ in the longest direction) and more greyish form of Lophophora williamsii that occurs in west Texas, Chihuahua and part of Coahuila. It occasionally has rhomboid tubercles with spiral or indistinct ribs. Pink flowers with pink midstripes are common.


Both the body and the flowers are more commonly slightly oval rather than round. Sometimes this is extreme when growing in cracks in rocks. Weniger’s “echinata” is also far more cold tolerant than a normal Lophophora williamsii and this difference has been commented on by cactus growers in Texas due to hard winters preferentially killing only the typical form.


White flowers are more common on other Lophophora species including diffusa but can and do sometimes occur on L. williamsii. I won’t say it can’t happen but so far I have not seen white flowers on L. williamsii echinata sensu Weniger.
While the bottom line is the name should be disposed of, the plants which have been known by that name are quite remarkable and merit more intensive cultivation.

Lophophora-williamsii-echinata-ValVerde-1

Lophophora williamsii echinata in Val Verde County

Two populations of Lophophora williamsii echinata survived the following extreme temperatures in 2011 despite clearly showing some losses of individuals:

Lophophora-williamsii-Feb-2011-Presidio County

February 2011 in Presidio County, Texas

 

 

These extremes would have killed most if not all of the more typical Lophophora williamsii.

Lophophora-williamsii-Feb-2011-LTR

February 2011 in Val Verde County, Texas

 

Perhaps Croizat had more information than he included. He did have access to the Harvard herbarium where the dried flower of Schultes photographed plant was said to still exist.

Its strange he did not mention more than that when designating Schultes photo of that plant to be the type for Lophophora echinata. It is one of several “species” Croizat names based on photographs and has what feel like oddly abbreviated descriptions so it seems peculiar that this work has been received with the respect it has.

Even more problematic, no locale was included by Schultes or by Croizat.

Bravo 1967 (& 1968) reduced the rank of echinata to a variety of williamsii but essentially added nothing to Croizat’s details about the plant itself.

She did add Texas as the place of origin for Croizat’s plant citing Zhender as her source of information. This seems probably to be in reference to J. & B. Zehnder and their company Kaktimex; the Swiss cactus house that was active in Mexico during the period of Bravo’s work on this. How Zehnder (or Zhender) would have known anything about the origin of Croizat’s plant might be questioned but may have just been a logical inference made by someone questioned by Bravo.

This author would assume that as well, especially as Schultes was writing about drug use of peyote in those papers so including an example of a typical drug plant peyote as used by the NAC is very likely. As would be his using something that was present in Harvard’s collections.

Bravo includes reference to Schultes’ photo as an illustration of Lophophora williamsii var. echinata (Croizat) Bravo and adds another example in the form of a reference to a photo in Thompson. She does not mention having collected it herself or having ever observed it in the field but elsewhere does mention a number of collections she had made including one at a location in West Texas where any Lophophora she encountered would have been Weninger’s “var. echinata”.

By her next publication on the subject L. williamsii var echinata Bravo is further reduced to becoming just a note in the synonym list under L. williamsii. So far no reason has been located in print but Croizat’s type might be mentioned again.

Schultes used this same photograph in 1937, 1938 and 1940. The available copy of Schultes 1937 is the most clear and provided the view that is included. If I were Bravo, or anyone else who was familiar with peyote, I’d hazard a guess the plant in this picture came from south Texas or Mexico.

Bravo also preserved the flower color given by Croizat. She too says white (blanca) but does not mention examining material so it seems likely she is just repeating Croizat.

White flowers are certainly known occasionally from south Texas plants but the petals are far more often white with a pink stripe or some shade of light pink bearing a darker midstripe.

Bravo does however give pink as the flower color for Lophophora williamsii var decipiens Croizat. I just can’t seem to get free of decipiens yet.

It might be logical to *want* to equate decipiens here as Backeberg did when he assigned decipiens as the pink flowered Lophophora williamsii var. decipiens. The form responsible for making decipiens noteable is certainly common enough in “echinata” sensu Weniger. A potential problem point needs to be kept in mind in that as “decipiens” is also not at all uncommon in both Lophophora fricii and in Lophophora diffusa.

Lophophora-echinata-Backeberg-1961-Abb2728

Lophophora echinata Backeberg 1961: Abb. 2728

Just for hopes of some clarity, or perhaps in this case to lose any delusions of it, let’s return to Croizat and remind that his Lophophora echinata bearing white flowers suggests it needs to at least potentially incorporate diffusa; along with fricii and williamsii as both of those sometimes flower white.

There are a number of interesting early instances scattered through MfK where the authors used “lewinii” to refer to what *now* seems to be echinata/decipiens (with pink or white blushed pinkish with pink striped flowers) before history redirected “lewinii” to Lophophora diffusa with white or yellow flowers.

While I have  not been able to learn how Croizat’s echinata got transformed beyond Bravo’s echinata into Weniger’s view of echinata it is easy to see why Weniger might want to attach the name echinata since many of the plants can be rather spiky looking. Reading Croizat and assuming that any of his plants fit Weniger’s echinata, decipiens would appear to be the most likely candidate. 

      This particular material appears to represent a form or forms of Coahuilan L. fricii and/or williamsii that is in need of futher work; hopefully with an eye for disentangling it from the mess currently surrounding the name decipiens.
    At least a couple of the Mexican L. williamsii populations shown in Bohata et al. 2005 appeared to have a higher frequency of this form and merit more study.

It ideally needs be referred as something else or at least be clarified to as being discussed as echinata sensu Weniger.

There are two additional names associated with echinata to be aware of:

 

Lophophora echinata var. diffusa

Lophophora echinata var. lutea 

Lophophora diffusa

Posted on by

Lophophora diffusa (Croizat) Bravo

Léon Camille Marius Croizat (1944) Desert Plant Life, 16: 44. as Lophophora echinata var. diffusa.
Helia Bravo Hollis (1967) Cactaceas y Suculentas Mexicanas, 12: 13, as Lophophora diffusa.

This is a recognized species.

Lophophora-diffusa-Oz

Lophophora diffusa in Oz

 

Mescaline has been reported to be present in trace amounts. It has not been detectable by all researchers. (Those should not be viewed as being conflicting accounts but rather they should be understood as having results differing based on the cacti they analyzed. There is no reason to believe that any of the results were not valid.)

Lophophora-diffusa-flowering-CCI

Lophophora diffusa in habitat
from the Cactus Conservation Institute

Origin: Endemic Mexican cactus now found only in two relatively small areas such as around Peňa Blanca north of Vizarrón in the Mexican state of Querétaro [around 1,500 meters (5,000 feet) in elevation] and in another small population closer to Vizarrón. It is known to have formerly had more occurrences that now appear to be gone.

Habitat: Lophophora diffusa‘s habitat is stony limestone hillsides covered by thorny plants with thickets of both thorny and unarmed microphyllous shrubs (many of which serve as nurse plants).

Names encountered in horticulture: difyusa,  翠冠玉,  仙人掌


Lophophora-diffusa-seedlings

Lophophora diffusa young seedlings

One ould like to suppose this species had a nice start in botany. A major problem began when Léon Croizat inexplicably decided diffusa should be placed as a variety of Lophophora echinata. We will return to this again in a moment but the peculiar amount of confusion surrounding the entry of this species into botany needs to at least be mentioned.

Lophophora echinata Croiz. diffusa var. nov.

A var. typica podariis latioribus quam longis inter se arcte confluentibus, obscure conicis differt.

Typus: “Lophophora Williamsii” sensu Bravo, Cact. Mex. 378 fig. 201,
1937, excl. descr. syn. omn.

Croizat 1944.

One can only puzzle as to what Croizat was thinking. 

I suspect that many of Backeberg’s problems originated with his use of Croizat’s descriptions as a basis for his classification within this genus (apparently not caring that some was based on Rouhier) and that this was largely the source for the confusion surrounding echinata as it is now known in horticulture.

 Lophophora-diffusa-habitat-CCIHabitat photos from Cactus Conservation;
reproduced here with their permission 


Description of Lophophora diffusa

Body is yellowish-green [Anderson 1980, Schultes & Hofmann 1980; This is the only color I have observed in plants raised from seed], Grey-green, sometimes rather yellowish green. [Schultes & Hofmann 1992: p. 48], always with a grayish glaucous haze on the surface. Chalky green to pale bluish-green according to Lamb & Lamb 1978 (which raises questions in my mind about this and possible contribution from the European echinata/Lewinii intersection with Lophophora diffusa),

Normally solitary, they can form large clumps.

Plants are soft, succulent, often globular in shape, somewhat flattened, 2-7 cm. high, and 5-12 cm. in diameter.

They are usually lack well defined ribs and furrows, podaria are rarely elevated but are broad and flat; especially so on larger old plants. (Some Japanese cultivars such as “Big Breast” have been selectively developed for sake of having large and prominent podaria.) In contrast to the more regular distribution seen in L. williamsii, the tufts of hair are spread unequally on the prominent podaria. Old plants may form up to 13 very sinuous low spiral ribs sometimes with well defined tubercles in the sense commonly regarded as being for “decipiens”.

       Areoles are circular and small, set 1-2 cm. apart, ranging from 2 to 3 mm in diameter, bearing a small tuft of short white or grayish white hairs.

Flowers are said to be twice the size of williamsii (by Lamb & Lamb 1978); and by Schultes & Hofmann (1992) (p. 48) to be “much larger” than those of williamsii. Flowers: 1.3-2.2 cm. in diameter, 1.3-2.4 cm. long; Anderson (1980) page 187; 2.5 cm in length and 1.3 to 2.2 cm in diameter, Bravo

Flowers are white or faintly pink but sometimes appearing yellowish-white (Anderson (1980) page 187); white or yellow (Habermann 1975); pale pink and occasionally almost a pale magenta. (Lamb & Lamb 1978); slightly pinkish-white and sometimes yellowish white (Bravo 1991).

Hypanthium is naked and green; greenish-white receptacle tube has scales that are 2 to 6 mm in length,

Outer perianth segments are 1-2 mm. broad and green; the inner perianth segments are 2-2.5 mm, lanceolate, acuminate; outer segments of the perianth of 6 to 10 mm in length and 1 to 2 mm in width, lanceolate, acuminate, with the margin entire, white with a greenish midline ; the inner perianth segments arranged in two series, linear, with the apex ± rounded, with the margin entire, 10 mm in length and 2 to 2.5 mm in width, color is a slightly pinkish white and sometimes yellowish-white; 

White filaments with yellow anthers;

White style with 5 white stigma lobes.

Claviform fruit is naked, 15 to 20 mm in length and about 8 mm in diameter, of a light pink color becoming red (according to Bravo 1971), a light pink-purple color turning brown at maturity (according to Bravo 1991), whereas a white fruit is commonly reported by growers. Bohata et al 2005 commented that the fruit of L. diffusa can range from white to a dark pink. Kada & Koehres have both comment on L. diffusa typically producing many more seeds per fruit than L. williamsii.
Flowering from May through June according to Bravo 1991.

Pyriform seed, from 1 to 1.5 mm in length, with testa tuberculate.

Pollen is 0-6 colpate, 26.1-48.5 mm in diameter. Pollen is much less variable than L. williamsii and shows a higher percentage of tricolpate grains.

Lophophora-diffusa-flower-EvilGenius

Lophophora diffusa flowering; cultivated in Germany

 


Description adapted from Anderson 1980, Bravo 1967, 1978 & 1991, and Schultes & Hofmann 1980 & 1992

See (all have photograph):
Anderson 1980: page 187
Bravo 1967, 1978 & 199
Grym 1997 & 2014
Innes & Glass 1991: page 150
Lamb & Lamb 1978: page 1297
Schultes & Hofmann 1980: page 221; 1992: page 48

See also:
Bravo 1967 & 1978
Bruhn 1976
and Boke & Anderson 1970
and Anderson 1966.

Useful search terms for locating additional imagery:

翠冠玉（Lophophora diffusa）

翠冠玉缀化（Lophophora diffusa var. cristata)

 

Associations: According to Bravo, Lophophora diffusa grows at the base of and in the shade of such shrubs as creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), cenizo (Leucophyllum texanum), cat’s-claw (Mimosa biuncifera), huisache (Acacia farnesiana) and other species of the arid highlands. (Bravo 1991)

 

Mesa Garden #548

Mesa Garden #548

 

A more detailed listing of associated species does not appear to have been created yet but the following can be observed in Cactus Conservation Institute photographs online:

Astrophytum ornatum
Echinocactus platyacanthus
Larrea tridentata
Mammillaria compressa
Mammillaria spp.
Myrtillocactus geometrizans
Neolloydia conoidea
Opuntia leptocaulis
Prosopis sp.
     Strombocactus disciformis
Tiquilia spp.
& additional assorted cactus species

Additional species showing up in field collection notes at Ralph Martin’s database:
Coryphantha sp.
Mammillaria parkinsonii
Echinocereus pentalophus
Ferocactus histrix
Thelocactus leucacanthus var. schmollii

 

Lophophora_diffusa-Yb

Lophophora diffusa seedling

 

There seems to be no common name in the West to distinguish this from peyote. It is usually called peyote. Early literature sometimes referred to it as Anhalonium williamsii and much has been made of this by Holmstedt & Bruhn as it involved some of the early chemical and ethnobotanical accounts. See more in an analysis concerning what they refer to as  “The Lewinii Controversy.”

Heffter had apparently acquired Lophophora diffusa as peyote so noted Anhalonium williamsii during analysis to be chemically distinct from Anhalonium lewinii as he could only isolate pellotine from it. It seems probable that his A. lewinii was the dried material Parke-Davis had sent to Lewin. (From the latter Heffter isolated mescaline and several other alkaloids) Kauder and Lewin both also recognized there were two species based on chemical differences although only Heffter included illustrations. This topic is discussed in more detail in the comments on “Lewinii” and in the entry for L. williamsii (under its reported chemistry).

Suggestions for more in depth analysis and revision of the genus went largely unheeded until fairly recently. Even as late as 1959 the Bulletin on Narcotics insisted on referring to peyote as a monotypic genus consisting of only Echinocactus williamsii (Anhalonium williamsii), rejecting the name Lophophora entirely (Echinocactus williamsii was described by Lemaire 54 years prior to Coulter’s separation of the genus Lophophora). They interestingly dismissed Anhalonium lewinii as a pseudo “new species”  [Note 3].

Schumann 1898 felt there was only one species and that what Heffter referred to as Anhalonium williamsii (the plants which contained primarily pellotine) were simply a local chemical form of Echinocactus williamsii (Echinocactus williamsii a pellotinica)  

Britton & Rose similarly also believed there was only one species; Lophophora williamsii.

Despite their visible differences and observable differences there is still occasionally a lack of agreement between those who consider this a separate species (now this is most modern authorities) and those who consider this a variety of L. williamsii (a steadily decreasing minority). 

Lophophora-diffusa_LA

Lophophora diffusa

  

Reported analysis of Lophophora diffusa 

0.9% total alkaloid (whole plants; dry wt) 98% phenolic. Bruhn & Holmstedt 1974
Tyramine 0.1% of total alkaloid. Štarha 1997
N-Methyltyramine 0.1% of total alkaloid. Štarha 1997
Hordenine (trace) Bruhn & Holmstedt 1974; 0.5% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997; (In contrast to Todd 1969 who had not observed it in tlc.) 
Mescaline (As traces or absent entirely.) Traces in tops & roots (tlc) Todd 1969 [Wild material: Queretaro, Mexico]; Minor base: Habermann 1977, 1978a & 1978b (from Anderson 1980 & Štarha nd); 0.018% (± 0.012) Habermann 1978a (from Štarha 1997); 0.003% by dry weight (isolated): Siniscalco 1983 [Note 4]; 1.2% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997;  Not observed by Bruhn & Holmstedt 1974.
N-Methylmescaline (traces) Bruhn & Holmstedt 1974; 0.1% of total alkaloid. Štarha 1997 
Anhalinine 0.6% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997 (Not detected; Todd 1969) 
O-Methylanhalidine [Note 5] 0.7% of total alkaloid. Štarha 1997 
Anhalamine (no quantification [tlc]- in tops only, not in roots) Todd 1969; 5% of total alkaloid. Štarha 1997 
Anhalidine (trace) Bruhn & Holmstedt 1974; 0.1% of total alkaloid. Štarha 1997 
Anhalonidine (trace) Bruhn & Holmstedt 1974; (tlc showed in tops & roots: Todd 1969); 3.8% of total alkaloid. Štarha 1997  
Anhalonine 0.1% of total alkaloid. Štarha 1997 (Not detected; Todd 1969) 
Lophophorine (no quantification, [tlc] present in tops & roots: Todd 1969); 0.1% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997] 
O-Methylpellotine (trace) Bruhn & Agurell 1975 
Pellotine (0.75-0.89% [fresh wt]) Heffter 1894b. [Also observed as the major base by Habermann 1977, 1978a & 1978b (from Anderson 1980 & Štarha nd)]; 2.105% (± 0.108) Habermann 1978a (from Štarha 1997); (Todd 1969 reported it to be the major Štarha but did not quantify); 86.2% of total alkaloid: Štarha 1997] 
[Ed.:? Please note that Štarha (in Grym) 1997 cited Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996 but some included entries are not in Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996. They may refer to otherwise unpublished material but details are lacking; most likely due to my lack of understanding of the Czechoslovakian language]
Glucaric acid (tlc by Kringstad & Nordal1975)
Quinic acid (tlc, glc & gc-ms by Kringstad & Nordal 1975) 
[Štarha 1997 looked at cultivated material: GR1086; ]

 

Todd 1969 Lloydia 32 (3): 395-398:
Plants collected 26 June 1967 near Vizarrón.
Pellotine
Lophophorine
Anhalamine
Anhalonidine (traces)
Mescaline (traces)
Anhalamine was only in above ground portions while the other four alkaloids were equally present in root & above ground portions. Todd’s work was entirely based on tlc.

Bruhn & Holmstedt 1974 were unable to identify mescaline but observed N-Methylmescaline to be present in trace amounts in the nonphenolic fraction (using GLC-MS). There were other alkaloids present  that were at levels too low to identify.
One of these turned out to be O-Methylpellotine and they published the details in a subsequent paper. See below.
In fresh whole plants, they found a total alkaloid content of 0.90% of which 98% was phenolic and 2% was nonphenolic.
Pellotine was identified as major alkaloid in phenolic fraction. Small amounts of anhalidine and trace amounts of both anhalonidine and hordenine were observed in the phenolic fraction as well using tlc and gc. They did not observe anhalamine. Anhalamine and mescaline, if present, were at trace levels too low for them to detect. They made no mention of lophophorine.
Plants were collected north of Vizarrón on 29 June 1971 by Jan G. Bruhn and Hernando Sánchez-Mejorada.Herbarium voucher was made. 

Bruhn & Agurell 1975 identified O-Methylpellotine as a trace component of L. diffusa.
They were unable to isolate it due to low concentration present. [They recovered 10 mg. of non-phenolic alkaloids from 500 grams of fresh plants.]
Identified by tlc, GC and GLC-MS with a known reference sample.
Herbarium voucher was made.


Schultes & Hofmann 1980: p. 221
Principle alkaloid is pellotine (over 90% of total alkaloid).
Produces mainly phenolic tetrahydroisoquinolines and only very low amounts of non-phenolic alkaloids (2% of total) 

Lophophora_diffusa-Ya

Lophophora diffusa seedling

 

 
 
Lophophora williamsii caespitosa

Lophophora williamsii "caespitosa"

Posted on by

Lophophora williamsii var. caespitosa Hort.

Also AKA Lophophora caespitosa

At most this is a form rather than a variety. The word “Hort.” indicates it is a cultivar which removes it from the interest of most botanists.

Lophophora "caespitosa"

Lophophora cv. caespitosa in NSW

Japanese horticultural name: Kobuki-ubadama

The name caespitosa and the accompanying analytical reports need to be regarded with some caution. “caespitosa” is not really a variety or a species but is a growth form that can be exhibited by several of the peyote species. Multiple headed growth often results following decapitation and is also the norm in grafted plants but caespitose individuals can be found in almost any intact healthy peyote population. They are capable of forming large mounds, up to a meter across according to Anderson, that are commonly referred to as “planchas“.

There is something that is present in horticulture which does not always require decapitation for multiple pupping but they are often propagated through grafting. There are multiple forms of these “caespitosa” in horticulture so care should be taken not to automatically equate them with each other without adequate additional information. It is also not to confuse these with the pupping induced by grafting.

A large crown surrounded by smaller ones is common but one clone in particular offsets vigorously with many small 5-ribbed crowns that stay fairly small and has a form that suggests it may be some type of a densely clustering semi-monstrose (the pupping reminds me somewhat of that of Mammillaria bocasana cv. Fred). 

There are an unclear number of horticultural offerings but it is clear there are at least several that are distinct from each other. What has been tested by Habermann and by Štarha and by Fujita were all horticultural and they do not all appear to have been the same plants despite bearing the same name. Štarha and Habermann may have tested the same offering but it appears Fujita did not as his plant was found not to contain mescaline. Fujita included a photograph but Štarha and Habermann did not unless it was in a paper that I have not yet accessed.

The plants analyzed in Fujita et al. 1972 appear to be either grafted plants or they include a comparative photographs of the parent stock with a fat grafted clump. 

The mother plant they show (ungrafted) has diffuse fleshy short roots such as are often seen on rooted cuttings. I have to wonder if it was collected as a cut plant and then rooted or if it originated from grafted plants which were then rooted. 

Both specimens show the bloating often seen in grafted plants, and also often in older specimens of well watered L. diffusa, but they did not appear to be L. diffusa.

Var. caespitosa is rejected by Anderson 1980 as an epithet in reference to multiple heading characteristics of some types of L. williamsii.

See also: Ito 1952

Innes & Glass 1991 feature a color photo of this form on page 150.

 

Reported analysis of Lophophora williamsii f. caespitosa Y.Ito n.n.

[Note 24]

Mescaline 0.701% (± 0.085) [dry wt?]

Pellotine 0.300% (± 0.095)[dry wt?]

Habermann 1978a (from Štarha in Grym 1997)]

Pellotine (Major) Habermann 1978a (From Štarha n.d.); Anderson 1980 cited Habermann 1977 & Habermann 1978a; [1.819% (± 0.212) (from Štarha 1997 citing Habermann 1978a)]; (65.2% & 65.5% of total alkaloid* [Štarha 1997 cited Štarha & Kuchyňa 1996])

Another analysis of a plant bearing this name was published (in Japanese) by Fujita et al. 1972.  [Note 25]

They reported four new alkaloids (and five familiar ones):

1,2-Dimethyl-6,7-dimethoxy-8-hydroxy-3,4-dihydroisoquinolinium inner salt (0.00008% fresh wt.)

2-Methyl-6,7-dimethoxy-8-hydroxy-3,4-dihydroisoquinolinium inner salt (0.001% fresh weight)

1-Methyl-6,7-dimethoxy-8-hydroxy-3,4-dihydroisoquinoline (0.0001% fresh weight)

6,7-dimethoxy-8-hydroxy-3,4-dihydroisoquinoline (0.0008% fresh weight)

Pellotine (0.01%)

Anhalidine (0.005%)

Anhalonidine (0.001%)

Anhalamine (detected)

Lophophorine (detected) [Note 26]

All % by fresh wt. They did not detect mescaline suggesting this caespitosa might be derived from another Lophophora species.
Fujita analyzed plants grown in Japan.
They unfortunately assigned the previously used name Peyotine to one of their new molecules!

This was only partially translated from the Japanese (through the kind help of J.Hanna and friends).

They were using Cereus pitajaya DC. as the stock for the graft photographed. They also listed the names Cereus pruinosus Otto and Cereus tortuosus Forbes in the text. I assume in reference to other common choices of preferred grafting stock?

The translator believed the grafted plants were not used in the analysis which begs the question as to why grafted plants were shown with apparent grafting stock choices seemingly being discussed. 

Above shows a 45-year old plant of Lophophora williamsii  “caespitosa”;
cultivated in Germany (Both photos are copyrighted by Evil Genius)

Lophophora-williamsii-caespitosa

Lophophora williamsii “caespitosa“; cultivated in USA

 Lophophora-caespitosa_Anonymous-graft

A caespitose Lophophora williamsii by Anonymous

Graft-induced caespitose Lophophora williamsii

 

 

Caespitose individuals of Lophophora williamsii commonly occur in the South Texas populations; if they are not harvested.

caespitose plancha in South Texas

A  “plancha” in the South Texas Peyote Gardens

Lophophora williamsii sometimes grows caespitose in West Texas.
LTR_IMG_9595 copy

caespitose plant in Val Verde County

Lophophora-williamsii-echinata-Terrell-2790

caespitose plant in Terrell County

caespitose plant in Terrell County

caespitose plant in Terrell County

caespitose crest in Terrell County

cristate caespitose plant in Terrell County

Bravo shows a huge plancha growing in Mexico.
Lophophora diffusa, Lophophora fricii Lophophora jourdaniana & Lophophora williamsii can all offset and grow multiple crowns. L. koehresii was reported in Bohata et al. 2005 to remain solitary. 

 

Lophophora decipiens

Posted on by

Lophophora decipiens Croizat

AKA Lophophora williamsii var. decipiens (Croizat) Backeberg

This is another name that is encountered in the horticultural literature and is sometimes offered as plants and/or seeds. It has also been used to describe plants encountered in the wild exhibiting a particular growth form. This was originally employed, by Leon Croizat, to describe plants which have well defined tubercles but often lack sharply defined ribs. Sometimes these have squarish or trapezoidal tubercles defined by deep furrows. Unfortunately, that concept sprawls across several of the recognized species. This name contains a very nice example of the problems that have resulted when workers have not recognized the variability of Lophophora and attempted to assign a name to a plant expressing a variant mophology.

Lophophora-decipiens-Anonymous

A grafted Lophophora decipiens;
Photo by Anonymous

Croizat 1944: “Lophophora williamsii (Lem. ex Salm-Dyck) Coult. decipiens var. nov.

Culta pusilla ca. 5-6 cm. lata. Costis primum ca. 1·1, subtus in tuberculis conicis solutis. Flore roseo, in anthesi tubo elongato primo intuitu peculiari.

Typus: “Lophophora williamsii” sensu Britt. & Rose Cact: 3: pl. 10 fig. 4, 1922, excl. descr. syn. omn.

This is a peculiar small plant, of which I have cultivated a specimen furnished by Mr. and Mrs. F. Schmoll. A glance at the figure cited, compared with fig. 3 on the same plate (which iIlustrates the true L. williamsii) reveals material differences. In both plants the flower is pink, but the body of my new variety is basaly tubercled, rather than ribbed. precisely in the manner shown by Britton & Rose. The flower, moreover freely reaches out of the top of the plant, which can be seen in the type-figure, and is quite evident in life.”

Due to the ash grey body color, an appearance more tubercled than ribs and a flower said to be pink or rose Koehres and others have assigned this as a form or variety of Lophophora fricii. I’d suggest that thought to be on solid ground but only partially as we are about to see.

This can also occasionally be observed with L. williamsii, especially in the northern part of its range in Coahuila or in the Trans-Pecos in Texas but sometimes these plants represent a form of L. diffusa when encountered in horticulture. (For example, look at Lamb & Lamb’s L. diffusa. Or looking through Bohata et al 2005 one will find several nice images of this form being exhibited by L. diffusa, as well as by L. fricii and also by L. williamsii.)

Understanding the conceptual problem underlying this name choice would benefit by it being illustrated with a set of images of Lophophoras expressing a more tubercled look. The following images hopefully will show why this name is probably best if it is viewed as an occasional morphological form of the Lophophora species:

Lophophora-decipiens_insert_Lophophora-diffusa-ribbing

Lophophora diffusa   In habitat; photo from CactusConservation.com.

Lophophora-decipiens_insert_L_fricii_QualityCactus_Eric_3wide copy

Lophophora fricii from Quality Cactus in 1982

Lophophora_williamsii_JimHoggCo-14

Lophophora williamsii in Jim Hogg County

Lophophora-williamsii-echinata-decipiens-Presidio

Lophophora williamsii ‘echinata’ in Presidio County, Texas;
this is also the identity and locale of the featured image at the top of this page

 

One recent seed offering noted that their seeds were collected near Vizarrón, Queretaro so that one at first glance seemed easy to untangle. However, both of their offerings producing seeds with this name were described as being grey in color.  Variations in how people define color terms may be involved; this may be perceptual but there are also cultural differences in color term definitions. It is conceivablethat the body color of the diffusa shown above could be called grey by one person and yellowish-green by another.

Anderson rejects the name “decipiens” entirely stating that it only refers to plants which were said to be basally tubercled or to have pronounced tubercles but indistinct ribs, and flowers which projected farther above the top of the plant. I agree with Anderson and believe this name should only be used with clear qualifiers included.

The name Lophophora decipiens was apparently described by Croizat based on a figure appearing as part of a plate in Britton & Rose 1922, Vol. 3, Plate 10, fig. 4.

This picture is a drawing made from a photograph taken of a plant which was obtained via France. The collection locality and origin was unknown. See Anderson 1980 page 184 or Britton & Rose 1922 [or the 1977 reprint]. Incredibly, this drawing was designated as the type specimen by Croizat on the basis of him having another peyote plant that resembled it. Croizat described decipiens as having up to 11 ribs and only growing to 6 cm in diameter which seems peculiar as the material he examined first-hand was apparently limited to that one plant and the type specimen was not accessible to him. 

Backeberg 1961 lists a short entry on page 2899 and assigns this name to Fric’s picture #III (i.e. what became Lophophora fricii) in figure 2731 on page 2903. Backeberg clearly had some major frustration with this genus.

Pizzetti 1985 describes decipiens as being a small form with conical tubercles. 

Apparently a newer definition exists; diverging from all of the above as Lophophora fricii var. decipiens. Expect more confusion surrounding this name in the future as it now appears to be applied to wild material collected near Bahan, Coahuila.
Sergei Batov describes these plants as having light pink to even lighter pink flowers up to 1.5 cm, grey-green skin, rhomboid tubercles and 8-10 spiral ribs [1999 e-mail forwarded by M.S. Smith]. The modern attempts to describe the Coahuilan material by this name obviously lack any linkage to Croizat’s type but if “decipiens” is being assigned as a varietal name, it would seem to be fair game.  It would also be just as fair and accurate to use decipiens as a descriptive horticultural term to apply to the form when it is being expressed by any of the other known species (for examples: Lophophora diffusa “decipiens” and Lophophora williamsii “decipiens“).

Lophophora fricii var. decipiens. Photo by Ade

Lophophora fricii var. decipiens

Plants showing this growth form occur not as populations but as individuals within larger populations of what is sometimes referred to, in the West, as L. williamsii var. echinata (Croizat) Bravo sensu Weniger. This also overlapped with what was viewed as Anhalonium Lewinii during its early years. See additional comments here under those names.


In the images mentioned as being shown in Bohata et al. 2005 it is quite clear that this growth form can occur in both L. fricii or L. williamsii and that both can be found *within Coahuila*.

See also Anderson and/or Benson and/or Bravo.

To be sure we are clear about the origin of our subject matter let’s look at Britton & Rose’s “decipiens” compared to their illustration of a typical L. williamsii.

Lophophora williamsii

Britton & Rose (1922) Vol. 3, Plate X, Figure 3. Lophophora williamsii.

Lophophora decipiens

Britton & Rose (1922) Vol. 3, Plate X, Figure 4.

Lophophora-decipiens-type-drawing-Croizat_after_BrandR

Croizat’s redrawn Type specimen of Lophophora decipiens

Lophophora-decipiens-L-williamii-projecting_flower-1

A flower projecting farther than typical on a South Texas L. williamsii

Lophophora-decipiens-L-williamii-notprojecting_flower-2

Lophophora williamsii with a more typical flower

 

A nice picture approximating this form (but with severely spiraled ribs) is presented (accordingly) as L. diffusa in Lamb & Lamb 1978: Vol. 5; page 1297.

Backeberg 1977 shows pictures for Lophophora williamsii var. decipiens which appear to be Lophophora williamsii. As was mentioned earlier, he also assigned this name to a photo of  Fric’s sp. fl. rosea, the plant that went on to become Lophophora fricii.

Plants or plants grown from seeds originating in Europe (during the early 1980s) appeared to all be L. williamsii and what I have seen did not show the tubercle form mentioned and were called L. williamsii var. decipiensfor possessing larger and longer flowers than the species. In one case their flowers were described by their vendor to be violet-rose colored. (“grösse, längere, violetterosa Blüten”). The plants which grew from their seeds were clearly L. williamsii and were blue-green in color. Rabbits prevented my seeing their flower.

Both their form (compared to seed grown L. williamsii) and their catalog photo indicated them to be the larger multiribbed form that peyote can assume. They presented them as a variety of L. williamsii but they also used Backeberg’s classification of L. diffusa as L. echinata var. diffusa. (plants grown from the latter seeds were clearly L. diffusa.)

Lophophora-decipiens-seedling

Lophophora decipiens seedling grown from German seed

 

Lophophora decipiens Croizat

[Note 27]

Mescaline 0.724% (± 0.092) [dry wt?].

Pellotine 0.288% (± 0.066)[dry wt?]

Habermann 1978a (from Štarha in Grym 1997)

See also Habermann 1975 for a discussion of this ‘species.