This plant came as Crassula sarcocaulis ISI 99-41 = HBG67843. It's just been pointed out that the leaves are not opposite, it's definitely not a Crassula. I've had it for a few years without realising this, so I don't get any points for observation.
Does anyone else have ISI 99-41, and if so, is your plant the same as this or is it different?
The bark makes me think of a Cissus, which is isn't, or a Tylecodon. But it could be anything - any suggestions for an ID?
Crassula sarcocaulis - or not
Forum rules
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
- MikeT
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 1988
- https://www.behance.net/kuchnie-warszawa
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: SHEFFIELD
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Branch Treasurer
- Location: Sheffield
Crassula sarcocaulis - or not
Mike T
Sheffield Branch
BCSS member26525
Sheffield Branch
BCSS member26525
- Jim_Mercer
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: 24 Feb 2011
- Branch: LIVERPOOL
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Member
- Location: Liverpool
- Contact:
Re: Crassula sarcocaulis - or not
Too dark to get a picture of my plant now but it looks similar to yours and nothing like my other Crassula sarcocaulis plants. Hand written note on what appears to be original Huntington label says Bark Peels
- Phil_SK
- Moderator
- Posts: 5446
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: MACCLESFIELD & EAST CHESHIRE
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Forum Moderator
- Location: Stockport, UK
Re: Crassula sarcocaulis - or not
Not my area of expertise but could it be a relative of Sedum frutescens?
Phil Crewe, BCSS 38143. Mostly S. American cacti, esp. Lobivia, Sulcorebutia and little Opuntia
- Aiko
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 3867
- Joined: 12 Aug 2010
- Branch: None
- Country: Netherlands
- Role within the BCSS: Member
Re: Crassula sarcocaulis - or not
I also don't think this is a Crassula sarcocaulis. I believe the trunk stays 'twiggy', and not chunky like this was is appearing to become. I would also put my money on Cyphostemma or Cissus.
Hmmm, not a bad suggestion.Phil_SK wrote:Not my area of expertise but could it be a relative of Sedum frutescens?
- Jim_Mercer
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: 24 Feb 2011
- Branch: LIVERPOOL
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Member
- Location: Liverpool
- Contact:
Re: Crassula sarcocaulis - or not
Just managed to find my ISI CD which has a little bit more information than the label
ISI 99-41. Crassula sarcocaulis Eckl. & Zeyh. A natural bonsai subject, this pachycaulous shrublet grows to a couple of feet tall, with trunks to 2-3 inches in diameter clothed in peeling bark. Rooted cuttings of HBG 67843, a plant collected Aug. 1990 by M. Vassar (5948E) from shallow soil over massive rock plates above a large cliff ca. 25 km NE of Carolina, Mpumulanga (formerly the eastern Transvaal), S. Africa.
- MikeT
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 1988
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: SHEFFIELD
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Branch Treasurer
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Crassula sarcocaulis - or not
The description seems to fit the plant, Jim, but if it's a Crassula it should have opposite leaves.
There are 3 obvious explanations for my plant being wrongly named:
-I've messed the label up somewhere along the line
-someone else messed the label up before I acquired the plant
-Huntingdon mis-named the plant
If your plant is different then I can't blame Huntingdon. If your plant's the same as mine, option 2 is still possible if we both acquired plants from the same source. Has your plant flowered? Mine hasn't, which it should have done at this size if it were Crassula sarcocaulis.
There are 3 obvious explanations for my plant being wrongly named:
-I've messed the label up somewhere along the line
-someone else messed the label up before I acquired the plant
-Huntingdon mis-named the plant
If your plant is different then I can't blame Huntingdon. If your plant's the same as mine, option 2 is still possible if we both acquired plants from the same source. Has your plant flowered? Mine hasn't, which it should have done at this size if it were Crassula sarcocaulis.
Could be, Phil - I'd been thinking of something from South Africa, not MexicoPhil_SK wrote:Not my area of expertise but could it be a relative of Sedum frutescens?
Mike T
Sheffield Branch
BCSS member26525
Sheffield Branch
BCSS member26525
- Jim_Mercer
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: 24 Feb 2011
- Branch: LIVERPOOL
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Member
- Location: Liverpool
- Contact:
Re: Crassula sarcocaulis - or not
Unfortunately there is no picture of the plant in the original listing. I have another crassula which also has an ISI number that was given the wrong species name by Huntington/ISI but I would be surprised if they could make a mistake with the genus as the lack of paired leaves is rather obvious. I got my plant from Harry Mays so would expect that it has the correct label as he imported ISI plants before the export/import rules changed. Hopefully the location data is correct which would rule out Sedum frutescens
- Phil_SK
- Moderator
- Posts: 5446
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: MACCLESFIELD & EAST CHESHIRE
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Forum Moderator
- Location: Stockport, UK
Re: Crassula sarcocaulis - or not
The photos are unobtainable but it doesn't look like the Huntington issued photos of this one anyway, as there's no hyperlink for that name https://web.archive.org/web/19990508203 ... ISI99.html
Phil Crewe, BCSS 38143. Mostly S. American cacti, esp. Lobivia, Sulcorebutia and little Opuntia
- Phil_SK
- Moderator
- Posts: 5446
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: MACCLESFIELD & EAST CHESHIRE
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Forum Moderator
- Location: Stockport, UK
Re: Crassula sarcocaulis - or not
Not all the corrections are accessible - 2000 isn't, annoyingly! - but these don't mention that one:
2001: https://web.archive.org/web/20010717152 ... tions.html
2002: https://web.archive.org/web/20030218081 ... tions.html
2003: https://web.archive.org/web/20031006003 ... ndex4.html
2001: https://web.archive.org/web/20010717152 ... tions.html
2002: https://web.archive.org/web/20030218081 ... tions.html
2003: https://web.archive.org/web/20031006003 ... ndex4.html
Phil Crewe, BCSS 38143. Mostly S. American cacti, esp. Lobivia, Sulcorebutia and little Opuntia
- Jim_Mercer
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 2240
- Joined: 24 Feb 2011
- Branch: LIVERPOOL
- Country: UK
- Role within the BCSS: Member
- Location: Liverpool
- Contact:
Re: Crassula sarcocaulis - or not
The CD I have includes a pdf of the original listing from the CSSA journalPhil_SK wrote:The photos are unobtainable but it doesn't look like the Huntington issued photos of this one anyway, as there's no hyperlink for that name https://web.archive.org/web/19990508203 ... ISI99.html