Lophophora williamsii “var. pentagona” above was grown from German “var. pentagona” seed; most of them do not stay like this for very long.

 

Published analysis for “var. pentagona”

Compare that to “L. williamsii var. typica“
[Note 29]

The pentagona name game

Have some fun! See how many of the species for these “pentagona“s that you can identify without looking at the answers.

 

Echinocactus rapa Fischer & Meyer ex Regal

Its publication marked the third time that an illustration of peyote appeared in print. (in Sertum Petropolitanum seu Icones et Descriptiones Plantarum quae In Horto Botanico Imperiali Petropolitano Floruerent.)

 

 

 

This is Lophophora fricii.

 

This is a synonym of Lophophora koehresii.

This is a synonym of Lophophora fricii.

Lophophora texensis (大型乌羽玉)

This is also not a real species despite seeds being commercially available. It is typically just Lophophora williamsii that came from from south Texas.

 

 

Lophophora Tiegleri Werdermann

W. Taylor Marshall & Thor Methven Bock (1941) Cactacae, p. 138, comment that this “seems to be identical with” Lophophora Lewinii; giving its body color as yellowish-green with less pronounced tufts of wool and fewer & larger tubercles than on a L. Williamsii,  and producing white to cream flowers.
Obviously in their view L. lewinii is L. diffusa.

L. Chavier (1953) Cactus France 38: 255, under:
“Lophophora williamsii et Tiegleri” gives as synonyms: Lewinii, Tiegleri, Ziegleri and says they have a very pale yellow flower.
The photograph shown by Chavier is clearly Lophophora diffusa despite my photocopy being too poor in quality to permit reproduction here.

 

 

Lophophora sp. Viesca/ Vieska

This is a Lophophora fricii.

 

 

 Lophophora viridescens (Halda) Halda

Claimed to be a new “species”, its name appearring in the 1997 Acta Mus. Richnov. Sect. Nat. 4(2): 71. [Information from the 1998 Repertorium Plantarum Succulentarum XLIX]
This is apparently a new name for what was previously presented by Halda as L. diffusa ssp. viridescens and seems unlikely to ever gain any actual recognition as a species. More recently it was recognized as a synonym of Lophophora koehresii according to the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) online.

 

Lophophora williamsii (烏羽玉 / 乌羽玉)

 

 

Lophophora Ziegleri

 

 

Franz Buxbaum 1937 (in his article “Der Formenkreis de Strombocactus“) includes a photograph (fig. 26) from Backeberg taken of Lophophora Ziegleriana that is clearly a Lophophora diffusa and in line with Pizzetti’s comments. This name apparently came from Soulaire.

 

 

A common problem will soon encountered by anyone trying to sort out the different forms in horticulture: Horticultural designations of such peyote “species” and varieties are at the very least unreliably defined and may be unagreed upon between their many suppliers and growers.
Eastern Europe and Japan in particular appear to be intensive centers of not just propagation but of extensive selection and breeding for unusual characteristics. A plethora of names accompanies the output from both sources.

 

Crossing experiments within the genus Lophophora

Gerhard Koehres has reported successfully making the following crosses within the Lophophoras (success being judged by the production of seeds that have then been grown into actual seedlings) 

Koehres noted these to be self-sterile:
L. alberto-vojtechii 
L. diffusa 
L. fricii 
L. koehresii 
L. williamsii El Huizache SLP
L. williamsii Norias del Conde SLP
Koehres listed 25 additional L. williamsii populations that he had determined were self- fertile.
L. williamsii Parras, Coahuila is said to be self fertile despite most people now placing this with L. fricii.

Koehres did not get pollination for L. koehresii using pollen from L. williamsii Huizache but found L. williamsii Huizache could be successfully pollinated using pollen from L. koehresii.

Koehres also successfully pollinated L. koehresii with pollen from L. fricii and L. diffusa. (Kada used a self-fertile L. williamsii and could get no pollination using pollen from L. diffusa, L. fricii and L. koehresii.) 

L. fricii was reported by Koehres to be successfully pollinated using pollen from L. koehresii and L. diffusa. (Kada reported failures after 7 attempts involving L. diffusa pollen, 13 with L. williamsii and 18 L. koehresii pollen but reported success for 1 attempt involving a L. williamsii.) 

L. diffusa was successfully pollinated by Koehres using pollen from L. koehresii. (Kada has recorded a consistent failure after 11 attempts with pollen from L. fricii, 4 with L. koehresii pollen and 3 using L. williamsii pollen.) 

L. koehresii was successfully pollinated by Koehres using pollen from L. diffusa and L. fricii but not with pollen from L. williamsii Huizache (Kada reported successful pollination for 19 attempts using L. fricii pollen but none in 4 tries with L. diffusa pollen  and 29 with L. williamsii pollen) 

Koehres found that fruit can form from the early flowers within around 8 weeks but for the later blossoms the fruit often do not emerge until the following year. Koehres also commented that the self fertile populations are very uniform in comparison to the self sterile populations which are more highly variable in the shape of the body and the flower.

 

Lophophoras suspected of being hybrids

 

Photos by Anonymous

 

Folk medicinal uses of peyote are many and varied.

 

All species have apparently been employed for medicinal use on a local basis.

A representative few of the most common ones:

Decoction is given for fevers, the root and/or plant chewed and used as a poultice for fractures, infections, large open wounds, snake-bite and scorpion stings.
According to Landes 1963, the Potawatomis in Kansas believed it helpful for rheumatism and paralysis.
More traditional medicinal applications will be found listed within the entry for Lophophora williamsii.

 

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.)

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.

 Habitat 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.

 

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)

 

 

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

 

 

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). 

  

 

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)