If I set forth any premise, it was that its ID ws probably accurate
because it came from a botanical garden. I study mushrooms, where correct
identification is critical. and I've seen pros misidentify things, if that
tells you how much I trust the ID.
I'm not a plant taxonomist. If you want to argue my specimen's identity,
you might check around here for your next victim:
http://www.olbrich.org

Instead, why don't you just tell us all the right way to differentiate
teres, cereuscula, baccifera etc, from a photograph when they only have a
few sets of stems to go by?



"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?