Psychedelia.dk

Here's a bit on the subject:

http://forums.spiritplants.com/index.ph ... 5934a8824b

L. williamsii var. decipiens is likely a form of L. fricii that comes from a higher altitude. It appears to have taken on traits only slightly different than L. fricii, a plant that grows in the hot flatlands outside Torreon, Coahuila, Mexico. L. decipiens as know today may not even be the plant originally described under this name by Croizat. Croizat himself was uncertain of the creation of new classifications and in fact stated in his original write up on this “variation” that “in proposing varieties, I use the rank in a wholly non-committal sense.” In fact he discribed the "variation" from a botanical drawing, which itself came from a photo, that lacked any collection location. The epithet “decipiens” in fact means “misleading” and is used to name plants showing great similarity with another.

Here's something I posted over at the Nook in response to someone posting a list of different Lophophora "variations" offered by a german company.

This list of Lophophora is a tad bit messed up, particularly the referrence to a L. diffusa ssp. fricii. L. fricii (L. sp. Viesca) is without a doubt closer to a subspecies of L. williamsii than a subspecies of L. diffusa as can easily be assessed from its location at the extreme western fringes of L. williamsii and quite a good distance from the location of the smaller population of L. diffusa in the south. Many other features including the flower and tuburcle formation also clearly indicate that L. fricii is L. williamsii rather than L. diffusa.

The mentioning of the "diffusa ssp. fricii f. gigantea comb. prov., diameter of plant up 30 cm" is clearly a reference to Habermann's comments that L. fricii can grow up to 40 cm in diameter, an absolutely preposterous statement regarding any Lophophora species at all and something that has never been recorded by anyone else besides Habermann, much less photographed for the world, and his peers, to see for themselves. Rubbish!

The idea that L. fricii is an L. diffusa subspecies would clearly seem to arise from Habermann's chemical results that found pellotine to mescaline contents of L. fricii more similar to L. diffusa than to L. williamsii. But I would of course be quite interested in viewing a photo of the plant Habermann tested. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Habermann tested L. diffusa (or even L. koehresii) rather than the plant commonly known today as L. fricii as at the time of Habermann's testing L. fricii wasn't as clearly understood as it is today.

I would also believe that the L. echinata and the L. lutea in the listing are not anthing other than common L. duffusa, while the L. ziegleri is most likely a simple L. williamsii, at least if you follow the original description of L. ziegleri.

The L. viridescens is the plant better known today as L. koehresii, but which has also been described as L. sp Rio Verde. L. koehresii appears to be an independent species that grows in a small area between the two ranges of L. diffusa and L. williamsii. L. koehresii has been found to have pellotine to mescaline concentrations similar to L. diffusa.

The only L. williamsii in the list that could possibly be differentiated from others of the species is L. williamsii var. caespitosa, a plant that is most likely a cultivar rather than a species, subspecies, forma, or variation, and doesn't have natural populations. Otherwise all the other L. williamsii in the list are likely just slight variations in growth habits among different growing areas, but this in no way would indicate there should be any seperate botanical classification.

I hope that was helpful Bush. And just one more note not addressed above, L. jourdaniana is in all likelyhood a cultivar and not present in natural populations. Also, it doesn't appear that L. koehresii had any traditional use, at least among the huichol who collected L. williamsii farther to the west. the L. fricii/L. decipiens complex could of possibly had use, but it hasn't been accurately confirmed if any tribes had ever collected in that particular area. I wouldn't doubt though if this plant has been collected and used by westerners and Mexicans, but I still haven't seen any confirmation of either species EVER having been used for entheogenic purposes.

The only Lophophora really deserving any true botanical classification are L. williamsii, L. fricii/L. decipiens (an L. williamsii subspecies), L. diffusa, and L. koehresii. L. willaimsii var. ceaspitosa and L. jourdaniana are apparently cultivars. Most every other name applies to L. williamsii growth variations that are common and are usually defined by growth ranges, but shouldn't indicate any seperation into thier own species, subspecies, variations, or formas. If anything these others should be at the forma level.

~Michael~