Lophophora variety?

[NeurOptic]

Another one I spotted that I believe to be Lophophora. Tuberous roots and recently flowered with a white flower with subtle pink stripes down the center of the petals. Any ideas of which variety this is? Attached flower pic is from another plant but nearly identical flower.

[Steve Johnson]

Lophophora williamsii var. caespitosa

[Tom in Tucson]

Lophophora williamsii var. caespitosa

Should be Lophophora williamsii 'Caespitosa' - a horticultural name

[Steve Johnson]

Lophophora williamsii var. caespitosa

Should be Lophophora williamsii 'Caespitosa' - a horticultural name

Yeah, that's Llifle being a bit sloppy on the name.

[DaveW]

As Tom and Steve say for cultivars the name should not be italicised as with botanical forms but capitalised and in single quotes to denote it is not a botanical variety or subspecies, but a horticultural form.

In fact caespitose forms can probably exist in all the Lophophora species. Also many Lophophora's can offset in age so its merely a case of how small and prolifically they do it.

[NeurOptic]

As Tom and Steve say for cultivars the name should not be italicised as with botanical forms but capitalised and in single quotes to denote it is not a botanical variety or subspecies, but a horticultural form.

In fact caespitose forms can probably exist in all the Lophophora species. Also many Lophophora's can offset in age so its merely a case of how small and prolifically they do it.

Thanks everyone that replied, I appreciate the clarification on how to properly apply the naming/ ID of this specimen.

DaveW: do you mind describing more about what you mean by “offset with age”?

Also, given that caespitose may occur in all species are there particular traits about these photos that would indicate it is in fact williamsii ‘Caespitosa’ as opposed to others?

[MrXeric]

As Tom and Steve say for cultivars the name should not be italicised as with botanical forms but capitalised and in single quotes to denote it is not a botanical variety or subspecies, but a horticultural form.

In fact caespitose forms can probably exist in all the Lophophora species. Also many Lophophora's can offset in age so its merely a case of how small and prolifically they do it.

Thanks everyone that replied, I appreciate the clarification on how to properly apply the naming/ ID of this specimen.

DaveW: do you mind describing more about what you mean by “offset with age”?

Also, given that caespitose may occur in all species are there particular traits about these photos that would indicate it is in fact williamsii ‘Caespitosa’ as opposed to others?

The flower makes it look like williamsii. The shape and color of the stem may differ between species, but really, flower shape and color is more precise if using our eyes only. You'd need to get a DNA analysis or determine the mescaline content to be 100% certain though. The 'Caespitosa' name is attached because your plant seems to be eager to grow branches and make a cluster. Like Dave mentioned, as cacti mature they tend to form clusters, especially in cultivation.

[DaveW]

Even plants that we normally regard as single headed can often offset in age. I have a large L. williamsii I got from an old collection that started to offset when the head got three inches diameter and old enough to virtually form a trunk where the old growth had concertina'd at the base. However with one medium sized offset and another small one coming you would hardly describe it as unduly proliferous at that age.

"Caespitose" is really applied to plants that produce more numerous heads at a smaller size.

See:-

https://sacredcacti.com/blog/caespitosa/

As MrXeric says with Lophophora's they seem now to be divided into species as much by their DNA as their morphology. as was the case in the past, since even flower colour can vary.