Loph. fricci

For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation and exhibition of cacti & other succulents.
Forum rules
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.

Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
User avatar
DaveW
BCSS Member
Posts: 8154
https://www.behance.net/kuchnie-warszawa
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Branch: NOTTINGHAM
Country: UK
Role within the BCSS: Branch President
Location: Nottingham

Re: Loph. fricci

Post by DaveW »

Ragamala regarding which have been published see "Species and names" in the left had column of the link below:-

http://www.lophophora.info/e_index.htm

There was a good series on Lophophora in Habitat in the American Journal:-

http://www.lophophora.info/Stalking%20t ... rt%201.pdf

http://www.lophophora.info/Stalking%20t ... rt%202.pdf

http://www.lophophora.info/Stalking%20t ... rt%203.pdf

I suppose it depends how you erect species, on chemistry, flower colour or body form?

Lophophora kohresii is greener bodied. I believe it was originally intended to call it "L. viridis" because of this. If I remember correctly this is a plant from Nick.
kohresii.jpg
Since the above series of articles an even smaller Lophophora was discovered L. alberto-vojtechii. It is said fully mature heads are no larger than one inch (25mm) across in habitat. The 5p coin is threequarters on an inch across (2cm).
L-alberto-vojtechii.jpg
Nottingham Branch BCSS. Joined the then NCSS in 1961, Membership number 11944. Cactus only collection.
User avatar
ragamala
BCSS Member
Posts: 999
Joined: 28 Feb 2016
Branch: NORTH FYLDE
Country: UK

Re: Loph. fricci

Post by ragamala »

Thanks Dave

"In habitat Lophophora fricii is a very mutable species. It´s hardly to find two similar plants at one location. Particularly in terms of the bloom they are different at the locations. "

Hardly encourages me to diverge from my previous thoughts.

As for the rest, you're right. But whether differences mean species separation, subspecies/variety differentiation or whatever, I think for what is basically one group of very similar plants this has received more than its fair share of attention.
Nick_G
BCSS Member
Posts: 750
Joined: 12 Apr 2013
Branch: None
Country: Shetland

Re: Loph. fricci

Post by Nick_G »

I've never grown L.alberto-vojtechii but the other 4, L.diffusa, L.williamsii, L.fricii and L.koehresii are quite distinct in flower, epidermis and rib structure. You could also split L.willamsii depending on whether the population is autogamous or not. In my opinion they are worthy of different labels in a collection even if strictly speaking they are not distinct species and I say that even though, to be honest, I am a super-lumper at heart.

I like them all a lot but then I am an old hippy and I am actually wearing a Grateful Dead t-shirt as I type this. :smile:
BCSS no.33806

Turbinicarpus, Lophophora, Ariocarpus, Lobivia and Gymnocalycium
Eric Williams
BCSS Member
Posts: 2315
Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Branch: SOUTH WALES
Country: UK

Re: Loph. fricci

Post by Eric Williams »

Thanks for your kind words Tina. I experimented with this plant many years ago putting it in Ariocarpus type compost and a much deeper pot. It seems to like it. Cheers
Terry S.

Re: Loph. fricci

Post by Terry S. »

MikeDom's plant is similar to the ones that I grow apart from it being larger. However, when you visit the National Show, you can see beautiful examples covered with abundant white wool. How do the growers do it? A particular problem with all the lophophoras is their susceptibility to red spider mite. As prophylaxis, I therefore spray my plants through the season with SB Plant Invigorator. This has the effect of regularly matting the wool and I never end up with anything looking like the super examples.

Nick mentioned the lack of self-fertility in all species apart from L. willimasii. This summer I cross-pollinated two L. koeresii and they are now in fruit. Rather than the long pink berries of L. williamsii, they have short, almost spherical pale pinkish-white berries. There are various factors by which the "species" can be distinguished and when you add them together, I am happy to accept the various taxa at species or subspecies levels. A Greek friend who is a Ariocarpus enthusiast commented to me that since most cacti tend to be distinguished by their spination, there are probably more discrete taxa within Ariocarpus (and Lophophora) than we realise. Role on high resolution DNA results!
User avatar
DaveW
BCSS Member
Posts: 8154
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Branch: NOTTINGHAM
Country: UK
Role within the BCSS: Branch President
Location: Nottingham

Re: Loph. fricci

Post by DaveW »

Classifications of course are merely methods for putting items in convenient pigeon holes to help sort them out and so can be based on any feature or method desired. There is seldom any single accepted classification in use around the world at any one time. We presently have David Hunt's versus Joel Lode's system and if I remember correctly there are also couple of others for individual genera like Mammillaria. There probably will never be a definitive classification, since as history has shown "just like Corporation Busses", there will be another one along in a minute! Alas classifications go in fashions, with even professional botanists "jumping on the latest bandwagon" so as not to appear out of step with the majority of their profession, even if personally having doubts of some aspects of it.

Most presently prefer classifications that are phylogenetic, which as far as we are able to ascertain are how the plants evolved from common ancestors. Although where you then divide the evolutionary lines into convenient genera or species is still a matter of personal opinion and allows for both "Lumpers" and "Splitters".

In the past we tended to rely on morphology, their obvious visible features, to try and put them into their correct lines of evolution, But now DNA Sequencing (chemistry) is being used, which is indicating some plants that look as though they are related are merely a case of parallel evolution through inhabiting similar habitats, Rebutia and Aylostera for instance.

We are now running into the problem that a morphological classification suitable for identifying plants in the field, or collections, may be flawed from the evolutionary point of view. But an evolutionary classification based on chemistry, needing to be determined in the laboratory, may often be little use in the field.

This means we need to ask the question "what is the classification intended for?" Meaning which is the best classification for our personal needs? Therefore is an "armchair botanists" laboratory classification the most appropriate for a collector or worker in the field?

See:-

http://www.biologydiscussion.com/plants ... ypes/30330
Nottingham Branch BCSS. Joined the then NCSS in 1961, Membership number 11944. Cactus only collection.
User avatar
Tina
BCSS Member
Posts: 7019
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Branch: NORTHAMPTON & MILTON KEYNES
Country: England
Role within the BCSS: Member
Location: BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

Re: Loph. fricci

Post by Tina »

matting the wool
I use a babies soft tooth brush for fluffing the lophophora and ariocarpus wool.

When we moved and some of the plant were in the garden for a few months I had mice remove all the wool and damage my best plant when they did it, it will take a few years now for it to recover, the poor conophytm ratum never recovered from being nibbled.
Tina

varied collection of succulents and cacti but I especially like Euphorbia's, Ariocarpus and variegated agaves.

Bucks, UK
Branch co-ordinator, Northants & MK BCSS https://northants.bcss.org.uk
BCSS Talk team member, contact me- BCSS.Talk@Gmail.com if you want to volunteer or suggest a speaker plz.
User avatar
DaveW
BCSS Member
Posts: 8154
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Branch: NOTTINGHAM
Country: UK
Role within the BCSS: Branch President
Location: Nottingham

Re: Loph. fricci

Post by DaveW »

Lophophora's grow quicker than you think Tina, though they may not gain much size in doing so. I had one about an inch across split it's epidermis through taking water up too quickly, but in just over a year this split had virtually disappeared beneath it, even though the plant did not seem a lot larger.

Another got sunburnt, but the new growth grew out with the sunburnt part moving quite quickly to the base, rather like a Lithop growing through the previous years leaves.

I was given one of the caespitose forms where somebody had used too strong insecticide and burnt it all over. In just over a year all the heads had put out new growth and the burnt part disappeared underneath.

Quite a few cacti grow reasonably quickly, but concertina at the base almost as quickly, therefore don't seem to gain "altitude" very quickly.
Nottingham Branch BCSS. Joined the then NCSS in 1961, Membership number 11944. Cactus only collection.
MikeDom
BCSS Member
Posts: 508
Joined: 08 Jun 2018
Branch: GLOUCESTER
Country: England
Role within the BCSS: Member
Location: King Cod's Land

Re: Loph. fricci

Post by MikeDom »

A splash of water and it's flowering time.
IMG_4439.JPG
Mike

BCSS member 39216

Active grower of caudiciform succulents and mesembs. I don't really grow cacti (very often).
AntonyC
BCSS Member
Posts: 263
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Branch: BIRMINGHAM & District
Country: UK
Role within the BCSS: Member
Location: West Mids

Re: Loph. fricci

Post by AntonyC »

My lophs are attacked on a 'regular' basis in the greenhouse but always grow back within a few years although the size of them doesn't seem to increase as quickly..... :sad:
15336614239321113014886817992793.jpg
15336614931572810806615406937731.jpg
You can see some of last year's damage on the 2nd photo is already growing out nicely
Growing anything I can keep alive :-)
Birmingham branch member
Post Reply