Pride comes before a fall, Saddam.

Your logic is completely lacking.


Mike Stevenson wrote in message
...
Doesn't he just make ya proud...

"Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote in message
...
Your premise is wrong and logic is faulty.

Rhipsalis are stem succulents that have no true leaves at all.

Have you bothered to consider that the person had misidentified your
plant
as Rhipsalis teres and that it is actually an etiolated Rhipsalis
cereuscula? Who is this "expert" that identified your plant anyway?


Lynne wrote in message
...
Ok, I think I got it now. My teres looked just like that when it was
rooting. But I see in the pic that if it were teres, the newer leaves
would
be a little bit longer, and growing at a slightly smaller angle. If I
hadn't
just spent a half an hour comparing photos of the two, I'd never know
the
difference in such a young specimen.



"Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote in message
. ..
Somebody must have misidentified your plant. It is a poorly grown
Rhipsalis
cereuscula.


Lynne wrote in message
...
It looks like a plant I have that was identified as Rhipsalis
teres.


"Lance R." wrote in message
. com...
large image:
http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg

Thanks for the help,
Lance