Sunday, April 6, 2008

FINGER ALOE: Cotyledon orbiculata var oblonga/flanaganii

I posted about this cool succulent plant earlier, thinking it was from the Senecio genus, but it's not. Usually, when the Cactus Collection mislabels their plants, the genus is correct, but the common name is wrong. I should have thought about this, well I guess I did, or I wouldn't have kept researching it. After researching for what seems like forever, I came across what I believe is the true name and classification for this plant: It is from the Crassulaceae (krass-yoo-LAY-see-ay) family, and is from the Cotyledon (kot-EE-lee-don) genus. It is a "orbiculata (or-bee-kul-AY-tuh) var oblonga," which I believe simply means that is is round and oblong. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I found a fabulous website that has great articles regarding African plants including paintings and sometimes actual clippings of plants. You need to sign up to see the articles. The site is called "Aluka" and you can reach it at: I downloaded a PDF file that included the following image:

Aluka calls this plant a Cotyledon Flanaganii.

I found an article from San Marcos Growers that confirmed that this was from the Cotyledon genus. Here's a picture from their article of this plant, which looks just like both images above.


Rosemarie said...

Kelly, I realize this entry is from a year ago, but feel I must tell you...the plant in the pic from San Marcos Growers is Cotyledon orbiculata var. oblonga 'Flavida' (as is stated at their website). Cotyledon orbiculata var. flanaganii is a different plant, which may be your plant. When it flowers you can compare. If yours has lighter orange blooms, as in the SMG pic or if it has darker orange blooms, it would be C. o. v. flanaganii. Here's a site showing this plant:
(I know Julie of A Succulent Life blog!) :) ~Rosemarie said...

I'm quite sure this is Cotyledon papillaris. I've just acquired a cultivar and finding your post on the Cotyledon tomentosa lead me to click the tag which led me here to, surprise!, my new plant with no-id that was still a few places back in the line for identification. Thanks for the tip off, smileyfaces. said...

nay, thinking you're right and that tracking down info on plant taxonomy is a true internet crapshoot.
Heck, the growers can't even label their plants correctly, why would i expect to find a consensus in the googles? you win!

Jstor now owns the awesome info that you refer to but jstors site is a stubborn butthole at the moment and isn't sharing the info to well - perhaps it's just a 24 bug?

anyway, thanks for your posts, i hope you're still active and i'm not commenting wicked old and abandoned blogs at 2:31am for the hell of it...