| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
what is this plant?
|
what is this plant?
looks like some kind of christmas cactus to me.
"Lance R." wrote in message . com... large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance |
what is this plant?
Hi there,
This is one of the many members of the species Crassula, it may be Crassula Lycopodioides or otherwise it's a very near relative. It requires the kind of soil that's being sold for growing cacti, it may have trouble growing in ordinary soil. It doesn't need much warmth but it does need a lot of light, especially during the winter! During the warmer months of the year it requires a usual amount of water, during winter time watering once every three weeks is enough. Lance R. wrote in .. . large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance |
what is this plant?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 04:30:54 GMT, "Lance R."
typed these words: large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance bladderwort? http://www.bobsloansampler.com/ Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories from Appalachia by Bob Sloan ISBN: 1-893239-21-7 |
what is this plant?
Rhipsalis cereuscula
Lance R. wrote in message . com... large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance |
what is this plant?
WRONG.
You are not even close and you have the wrong plant family altogether. The plant is a stem succulent not a leaf succulent. Crassula lycopodioides is a synonym for Crassula muscosa anyway. 19:09:05:13 wrote in message .. . Hi there, This is one of the many members of the species Crassula, it may be Crassula Lycopodioides or otherwise it's a very near relative. It requires the kind of soil that's being sold for growing cacti, it may have trouble growing in ordinary soil. It doesn't need much warmth but it does need a lot of light, especially during the winter! During the warmer months of the year it requires a usual amount of water, during winter time watering once every three weeks is enough. Lance R. wrote in .. . large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance |
what is this plant?
WRONG.
At least you do recognize it to be an epiphytic member of the Cactaceae. gregpresley wrote in message ... looks like some kind of christmas cactus to me. "Lance R." wrote in message . com... large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance |
what is this plant?
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
Not even close. The plant is a succulent not an aquatic. Julie Sloan wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 04:30:54 GMT, "Lance R." typed these words: large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance bladderwort? http://www.bobsloansampler.com/ Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories from Appalachia by Bob Sloan ISBN: 1-893239-21-7 |
what is this plant?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:32:59 GMT, "Cereoid-UR12yo"
typed these words: WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Not even close. The plant is a succulent not an aquatic. Let me guess. You're a bored 12-year-old. http://www.bobsloansampler.com/ Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories from Appalachia by Bob Sloan ISBN: 1-893239-21-7 |
what is this plant?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:19:14 GMT, "Cereoid-UR12yo"
wrote: WRONG. You are not even close and you have the wrong plant family altogether. The plant is a stem succulent not a leaf succulent. Crassula lycopodioides is a synonym for Crassula muscosa anyway. That reminds me of something I wondered about. I plant I have known as Crassula argenta seems to be being called C. ovata. Are there two similar palnts, or a name change, or am I just confused as usual? Thanks -- - Charles - -does not play well with others |
what is this plant?
Rhipsalis teres
"Lance R." wrote in message . com... large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance |
what is this plant?
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 |
what is this plant?
Since you have proven to be a **** poor guesser, you are still batting 1000,
you clueless numbnut. Julie Sloan wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:32:59 GMT, "Cereoid-UR12yo" typed these words: WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Not even close. The plant is a succulent not an aquatic. Let me guess. You're a bored 12-year-old. http://www.bobsloansampler.com/ Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories from Appalachia by Bob Sloan ISBN: 1-893239-21-7 |
what is this plant?
You are confused as usual.
The common "Jade Plant", correctly named Crassula ovata has in the horticultural literature incorrectly been listed under the later synonyms Crassula argentea, Crassula portulacea and Crassula obliqua. All the names refer to the same species. The original plant to be identified in this thread still is not a member of the Crassulaceae, however. Charles wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:19:14 GMT, "Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote: WRONG. You are not even close and you have the wrong plant family altogether. The plant is a stem succulent not a leaf succulent. Crassula lycopodioides is a synonym for Crassula muscosa anyway. That reminds me of something I wondered about. I plant I have known as Crassula argenta seems to be being called C. ovata. Are there two similar palnts, or a name change, or am I just confused as usual? Thanks -- - Charles - -does not play well with others |
what is this plant?
Its is a Rhipsalis but not Rhipsalis teres. It is a poorly grown Rhipsalis
cereuscula. Lynne wrote in message ... Rhipsalis teres "Lance R." wrote in message . com... large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance |
what is this plant?
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 |
what is this plant?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:01:24 GMT, "Cereoid-UR12yo"
wrote: You are confused as usual. No surprise there. The common "Jade Plant", correctly named Crassula ovata has in the horticultural literature incorrectly been listed under the later synonyms Crassula argentea, Crassula portulacea and Crassula obliqua. All the names refer to the same species. The original plant to be identified in this thread still is not a member of the Crassulaceae, however. Oh yeah, I knew that, but my guess would have been an Opunita, or an Orchid cactus grown very poorly. (some of mine looks not unlike the one questioned here.) Charles wrote in message .. . On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:19:14 GMT, "Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote: WRONG. You are not even close and you have the wrong plant family altogether. The plant is a stem succulent not a leaf succulent. Crassula lycopodioides is a synonym for Crassula muscosa anyway. That reminds me of something I wondered about. I plant I have known as Crassula argenta seems to be being called C. ovata. Are there two similar palnts, or a name change, or am I just confused as usual? Thanks -- - Charles - -does not play well with others -- - Charles - -does not play well with others |
what is this plant?
If it's different than mine, I sure can't tell. I assume my plant's ID is
correct, since I grew it from a little piece that fell off a plant in a botanical garden (yes, it really fell off). If I can figure out how, I'll put up a pic in a.b.p.g. OT, Another thing I'd like to figure out how to do is cancel posts... Using OE, I highlight the message and go to "Message", and click "Cancel message". Even though I get a message saying the cancellation's been sent, nothing ever happens. "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 |
what is this plant?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:20:26 -0400, "Lynne"
wrote: OT, Another thing I'd like to it really fell off). If I can figure out how, I'll put up a pic in a.b.p.g.figure out how to do is cancel posts... Using OE, I highlight the message and go to "Message", and click "Cancel message". Even though I get a message saying the cancellation's been sent, nothing ever happens. Some servers do not process cancels, they say they are too easy to fake. -- - Charles - -does not play well with others |
what is this plant?
"Lynne" wrote in
: OT, Another thing I'd like to figure out how to do is cancel posts... Using OE, I highlight the message and go to "Message", and click "Cancel message". Even though I get a message saying the cancellation's been sent, nothing ever happens. Some news services don't honor cancel requests and for those that do, it may take a while for the cancelation to take effect. It's also possible that your post is still cached locally and won't disappear until you refresh headers or some such. -- Salty |
what is this plant?
Well, excuse me for trying.
Are you the loud-mouth of this group or just your regular **** ant? And if you would, be so kind as to supply us with the right answer, oh wise one? Cereoid-UR12yo wrote in .. . WRONG. You are not even close and you have the wrong plant family altogether. The plant is a stem succulent not a leaf succulent. Crassula lycopodioides is a synonym for Crassula muscosa anyway. 19:09:05:13 wrote in message .. . Hi there, This is one of the many members of the species Crassula, it may be Crassula Lycopodioides or otherwise it's a very near relative. It requires the kind of soil that's being sold for growing cacti, it may have trouble growing in ordinary soil. It doesn't need much warmth but it does need a lot of light, especially during the winter! During the warmer months of the year it requires a usual amount of water, during winter time watering once every three weeks is enough. Lance R. wrote in .. . large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance |
what is this plant?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:14:53 GMT, "19:09:05:13"
wrote: Well, excuse me for trying. Are you the loud-mouth of this group or just your regular **** ant? Nah, he's just one of the few people who really know what they are talking about. Annoying, isn't it? And if you would, be so kind as to supply us with the right answer, oh wise one? He did. later in the thread. Read it and learn. -- - Charles - -does not play well with others |
what is this plant?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:37:39 -0400, Julie Sloan
wrote: Let me guess. You're a bored 12-year-old. |
what is this plant?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:08:12 GMT, animaux wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:37:39 -0400, Julie Sloan wrote: Let me guess. You're a bored 12-year-old. No, he's not a bored anything. He is a wealth of information bordering on encyclopedic. But the stock "let me guess. You are a bored 12-year old) is a typical as thy come Now go get your shine box. |
what is this plant?
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 |
what is this plant?
"Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote in message
. com... Rhipsalis cereuscula Lance R. wrote in message . com... large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance Thank you very much. All of you. :) We were given some cuttings of this plant, and told that it was called a "cigar plant". After the poor growth, I decided to look for help, at which time I realized that this was not a "cigar plant". Thanks for the advice, now perhaps we can give this plant what it needs. Lance |
what is this plant?
Thank you very much. All of you. :) We were given some cuttings of this
plant, and told that it was called a "cigar plant". After the poor growth, I decided to look for help, at which time I realized that this was not a "cigar plant". Thanks for the advice, now perhaps we can give this plant what it needs. Lance Speaking of giving the plant what it needs (I'm about to search the net) - any tips? Right now we have a couple of cuttings in a medium sized indoor pot with miracle grow potting soil, kept moist. Lance |
what is this plant?
If you don't know the answer or even have a clue, you shouldn't make badly
lame guesses. If you are so bad at observing that you cannot tell the difference between a stem succulent and a leaf succulent, your comments only add to the confusion. I'm just keeping the rest of you honest and aware of your real limitations. If you don't like it, you can just sit there and learn something instead of make an ass of yourself. I already did answer the question, oh sadly unenlightened and oblivious one. 19:09:05:13 wrote in message .. . Well, excuse me for trying. Are you the loud-mouth of this group or just your regular **** ant? And if you would, be so kind as to supply us with the right answer, oh wise one? Cereoid-UR12yo wrote in .. . WRONG. You are not even close and you have the wrong plant family altogether. The plant is a stem succulent not a leaf succulent. Crassula lycopodioides is a synonym for Crassula muscosa anyway. 19:09:05:13 wrote in message .. . Hi there, This is one of the many members of the species Crassula, it may be Crassula Lycopodioides or otherwise it's a very near relative. It requires the kind of soil that's being sold for growing cacti, it may have trouble growing in ordinary soil. It doesn't need much warmth but it does need a lot of light, especially during the winter! During the warmer months of the year it requires a usual amount of water, during winter time watering once every three weeks is enough. Lance R. wrote in .. . large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance |
what is this plant?
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 |
what is this plant?
It is best to grow your Rhipsalis as one would a "Christmas Cactus" or any
other epiphytic cactus. Give it plenty of light but not direct sun light, grow in a humasy soil mix, allow the soil to go dry between waterings, do not let the plant sit in standing water, fertilize with a houseplant fertilizer at 1/4 strength. What in the heck is a "Cigar Plant" supposed to be? Does it have anything to do with Moncia Lewinsky? Don't you just hate those cutesy common names? Lance R. wrote in message . com... Thank you very much. All of you. :) We were given some cuttings of this plant, and told that it was called a "cigar plant". After the poor growth, I decided to look for help, at which time I realized that this was not a "cigar plant". Thanks for the advice, now perhaps we can give this plant what it needs. Lance Speaking of giving the plant what it needs (I'm about to search the net) - any tips? Right now we have a couple of cuttings in a medium sized indoor pot with miracle grow potting soil, kept moist. Lance |
what is this plant?
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 |
what is this plant?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:20:26 -0400, "Lynne"
typed these words: If it's different than mine, I sure can't tell. I assume my plant's ID is correct, since I grew it from a little piece that fell off a plant in a botanical garden (yes, it really fell off). If I can figure out how, I'll put up a pic in a.b.p.g. OT, Another thing I'd like to figure out how to do is cancel posts... Using OE, I highlight the message and go to "Message", and click "Cancel message". Even though I get a message saying the cancellation's been sent, nothing ever happens. The "cancel" comand only works if the post hasn't been downloaded. Anyone who has downloaded your post before you cancelled it will still have it. hth Julie http://www.bobsloansampler.com/ Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories from Appalachia by Bob Sloan ISBN: 1-893239-21-7 |
what is this plant?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:11:54 GMT, animaux typed
these words: On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:08:12 GMT, animaux wrote: On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:37:39 -0400, Julie Sloan wrote: Let me guess. You're a bored 12-year-old. No, he's not a bored anything. He is a wealth of information bordering on encyclopedic. But the stock "let me guess. You are a bored 12-year old) is a typical as thy come Now go get your shine box. I suspect he'd gain more respect/friends/feedback by brushing up on his "people skills" instead of showing off this "wealth of information," but maybe he's one of those sad souls who think any attention is better than no attention at all. The "bored 12-y-o" guess results from his "UR12yo" ID, in case you missed that obvious inference. USENET abounds with belligerent twits who take out their little frustrations on everyone else. But what do I care. You're just pixels on my monitor. You're not real at all. Julie http://www.bobsloansampler.com/ Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories from Appalachia by Bob Sloan ISBN: 1-893239-21-7 |
what is this plant?
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 |
what is this plant?
"Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote in message
... It is best to grow your Rhipsalis as one would a "Christmas Cactus" or any other epiphytic cactus. Give it plenty of light but not direct sun light, grow in a humasy soil mix, allow the soil to go dry between waterings, do not let the plant sit in standing water, fertilize with a houseplant fertilizer at 1/4 strength. What in the heck is a "Cigar Plant" supposed to be? Does it have anything to do with Moncia Lewinsky? Don't you just hate those cutesy common names? Thanks for that. I will follow your instructions and see what happens. I haven't been able to find much on the net about this particular plant. I did read your answer to my fiance, who said that her Aunt, whom she got the plant from, has one which has grown quite large and healthy growing in only water (no soil). A "cigar plant" (Cuphea ignea): http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plan...hea_ignea.html Lance |
what is this plant?
Why are you responding in such an unfriendly manner?
I take it you have a reason for doing so and since we are to put up with it you might at least tell us *why* you're so hostile? "Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote in message .com... If you don't know the answer or even have a clue, you shouldn't make badly lame guesses. If you are so bad at observing that you cannot tell the difference between a stem succulent and a leaf succulent, your comments only add to the confusion. I'm just keeping the rest of you honest and aware of your real limitations. If you don't like it, you can just sit there and learn something instead of make an ass of yourself. I already did answer the question, oh sadly unenlightened and oblivious one. 19:09:05:13 wrote in message .. . Well, excuse me for trying. Are you the loud-mouth of this group or just your regular **** ant? And if you would, be so kind as to supply us with the right answer, oh wise one? Cereoid-UR12yo wrote in .. . WRONG. You are not even close and you have the wrong plant family altogether. The plant is a stem succulent not a leaf succulent. Crassula lycopodioides is a synonym for Crassula muscosa anyway. 19:09:05:13 wrote in message .. . Hi there, This is one of the many members of the species Crassula, it may be Crassula Lycopodioides or otherwise it's a very near relative. It requires the kind of soil that's being sold for growing cacti, it may have trouble growing in ordinary soil. It doesn't need much warmth but it does need a lot of light, especially during the winter! During the warmer months of the year it requires a usual amount of water, during winter time watering once every three weeks is enough. Lance R. wrote in .. . large image: http://www.lkgallery.com/plant1.jpg Thanks for the help, Lance |
what is this plant?
I've been watching for awhile. You apparently know your succulents better
than your orchids. Your atitude was mild after you left RGO but you've been getting more and more obnoxious again. Why do you have to make yourself feel omnipotent and make others feel inferior? If everyone in this group will put up with your arrogant behavior simply to get some info easily obtainable elseware, I suppose that's their business. But if you don't want to "duke it out" again, then tone it down. Gettng respect for your knowledge is a privilege and an honor. You get no respect for obnoxious, "in-your-face" attitude. "Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote in message m... 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 |
what is this plant?
I agree with you, but ignoring the ignorant is probably the best way to go.
"V_coerulea" wrote in message .. . I've been watching for awhile. You apparently know your succulents better than your orchids. Your atitude was mild after you left RGO but you've been getting more and more obnoxious again. Why do you have to make yourself feel omnipotent and make others feel inferior? If everyone in this group will put up with your arrogant behavior simply to get some info easily obtainable elseware, I suppose that's their business. But if you don't want to "duke it out" again, then tone it down. Gettng respect for your knowledge is a privilege and an honor. You get no respect for obnoxious, "in-your-face" attitude. "Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote in message m... 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 |
what is this plant?
You saying nothing at all is by far the best way to go but you probably lack
the self control. The original question was answered long ago and there is nothing of any relevance that you can contribute. Thomas Neumayr wrote in message . .. I agree with you, but ignoring the ignorant is probably the best way to go. "V_coerulea" wrote in message .. . I've been watching for awhile. You apparently know your succulents better than your orchids. Your atitude was mild after you left RGO but you've been getting more and more obnoxious again. Why do you have to make yourself feel omnipotent and make others feel inferior? If everyone in this group will put up with your arrogant behavior simply to get some info easily obtainable elseware, I suppose that's their business. But if you don't want to "duke it out" again, then tone it down. Gettng respect for your knowledge is a privilege and an honor. You get no respect for obnoxious, "in-your-face" attitude. "Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote in message m... 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 |
what is this plant?
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? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:22 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter