Don't laugh - I'm proud of this!

[LONGK]

This was one of the first succulents that I bought. Got it a couple of years ago from a small nursery in Cornwall for a quid or two. It was basically just the one rosette with a couple of babies growing. This is it today...................







I believe it to be Echeveria elegans but am happy to be corrected.

[Chrisg]

That is a nice little pot of plants. Not sure it is echeveria elegans though, This is elegans. notice that the flowers are quite small and not really very interesting. It also tend to be very tight clumps with no gaps between parents and offsets



Think it is more likely to be secunda (or glauca), which has looser bigger rosettes, larger flowers and looser clumps. Biggest difference is probably that the leaves are thinner and have a very defined hook tip.

[LONGK]

I knew that I would get a better id - thanks!

If it helps, the pot is 20cm in diameter. Had to repot it a few weeks ago as it was in an 11cm placcy pot that kept falling over.

[David Matzdorf]

It looks like E. secunda var. glauca, which I used to grow, not E. elegans, which I grow now.

I would have to restart E. secunda var. glauca every year after it reliably caught root rot in Spring. This applied whether I grew it in the ground or in a pot, under a rain shelter or exposed, indoors or outdoors. The only way I could keep it going was to overwinter a couple of rosettes dry and rootless and then start them off in pots the following Spring. Eventually, I ran out of material.

I find E. elegans much easier - it has persisted on my porch roof, in nearly pure gravel with a handful of soil added here and there, through two Winters, exposed to whatever the weather throws at it and in such shallow soil that I'm sure the roots freeze solid, even in relatively brief frosts. The pot with the original plant also overwinters OK outdoors, under a table to keep the rain off.

But you have E. secunda var. glauca, I'm reasonably sure.

EDIT: name correction.

[Chrisg]

It is a strange one hardiness wise, very marginal for me, as you say e. elgans is much more cold and wet tolerant although even this can be difficult to establish. With both getting them established is the issue. One you have one that has got through a couple of winters then they are much more cold tolerent.

If you are renaming, and it is not often I get to correct DM :twisted: it is echeveria secunda, if you want to get very fussy you can use echeveria secunda var glauca, but echeveria glauca is no longer a valid name.

David did you try echeveria rosea on your roof yet? LongK that is another that would be good for you. There is also a minature form of secunda that is more hardy than the normal form but no where near as interesting as rosea I think.

[Chad]

Think it is more likely to be secunda (or glauca).

So much truth in a throw away statement!

Echeveria glauca Hort has been a bit a problem to the taxonomists. It fits inside E.secunda but then it gets complicated. Is it a form, a variety or even a subspecies?

The RHS has fixed on E.secunda var. glauca but I don’t think the botanists are happy. It comes in many shapes and sizes so isn’t really one variety. Indeed the RHS list a named form [Compton Carousel].

Kew just list E.glauca as a synonym for Echeveria secunda.

Chad.

[LONGK]

I'll call it E.secunda from now on then..................
Seems hardy enough for my purposes - it was in the unheated greenhouse all winter, very much on the dry side.

E.rosea looks interesting. Need to hold back though as I have rather a lot of young perennials to over-winter this year including a couple of choice Lobelia.

[LONGK]

Another one for a better id. I have this as E.runyonii "Topsy Turvy"....................

[Chrisg]

Sorry not sure that one is correct either, although I am not sure what it is. The flowers are interesting. I'll have to go away and have a look through the books.

[LONGK]

Sorry not sure that one is correct either, although I am not sure what it is. The flowers are interesting. I'll have to go away and have a look through the books.

That's pretty much what I thought....................