Now that I have seen the photo of your plant, it looks like the very common
Rhipsalis baccifera not Rhipsalis teres nor R.cereuscula.

It is not the same as Lance's plant but a different Rhipsalis species
altogether.


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