Identifying Plants

[MartinD]

Ello

I've just received a shipment of plants from an ebay auction. I've heard a lot of good things about this person
so I figured I'd give them a go.
I've managed to identify quite a few from the bunch received, but some are eluding me. I've posted pics below
in the hope that you kind people can identify them for me!
Here goes:


Number 1:

Number 2:

Number 3:

Number 4:

Number 5:

Number 6:

Number 7:

Number 8: (don't think this is properly aquatic)

Number 9:

Number 10:

Number 11:

Number 11a:

 

[Liam]

1, don’t think its aquatic
2, Aquatic lobelia cardinalis
3, Hygrophila corymbosa, probably ‘Siamensis’
4, Ludwigia repens
5, don’t know
6, hygro polysperma, (I think)
7, doubt its aquatic
8 defenitely not a true aquatic,
9, don’t know, doubt its aquatic,
10, 11,12 all look very similar don’t know what they are.

 

[aaronnorth]

1) looks like a bamboo plant which isn't aquatic
2)*
3)*
4)*
5) Pennywort???
6)???
7) Doesn't look aquatic
8) Draceana - house plant (i got a bunch of flowers for my mum and it had one in)
9)???
10) Some sort of crypt
11) some sort of crypt
12) Some sort of crypt

* Already been answered

 

[frozenbarb]

1,7,8,9 is not aquatic. 10 and 11 looks like emerged Crypt or something/

 

[SuperColey1]

1 - Non Aquatic
2 - Non Aquatic
3 - Non Aquatic
4 - AQUATIC - Ludwigia Repens
5 - Non Aquatic
6 - AQUATIC - Hygro Polysperma
7 - Non Aquatic
8 - Non Aquatic
9 - Non Aquatic
10- Non Aquatic
11 - Non Aquatic
12 - Non Aquatic

10,11,12 have similar root structure to crypts but looking at the veins on the back of the leaves lead me to think they are non aquatic. The leaves don't look like crypts to me at all even without these veins.

Looks like you got a bad pack there. I would ask for my money back and spend it at Greenline or similar.

Andy

 

[Themuleous]

I have to go with everyone else there, most of those are non-aquatic unfortunately

Sam

 

[fozziebear]

number 6 looks NOTHING like my hygro polysperma, id say most if not all of those werent true aquatics, they just dont look right to me except maybe number 4 that looks like a true stem plant, id say never trust ebay collections, only buy individual plants, if you want a collection go to greenline aquatics www.aquaticplants.eu.com,

Regards, Angus.

 

[iSnail]

1 - Lady Palm - House plant
2 - Bergenia - garden plant
3 - No idea but looks like a garden plant to me
4 - Ludwigia
5 - No idea but again looks like garden plant
6 - No idea - looks very similar to a type of chinese vegetable that's grown on waterlogged soil (has it got solid or a draw type stem?)
7 & 8 - Definitely house plants
9 - No idea
10 & 11 - No idea but looks like house plant

 

[MartinD]

Hi,

Thanks for all your replies so far. The ebay link is this:
Aquarium Plants

The seller is swearing blind that they are all aquatic plants.
I have a problem tho - a lot of you are giving conflicting advice and, to top it off, images 5 and 6 are the same plant yet some of you say it's
it's aquatic and not aquatic in the same post!

 

[SuperColey1]

If 5 and 6 are the same plant then Im afraid the only plant you have that is aquatic is the Ludwigia Repens.

I would go back to the seller and give him the link to this thread if he wants to argue with people in the know he can post on here otherwise I guess you have already left feedback.

Andy

EDIT:

I just sent them this message:

a member of our planted forum has bought a collection from yourself and then asked for IDs on the plants.

Of the 12 photos they have posted only 1 (Ludwigia Repens) is an aquatic plant and the rest not yet they say that when they asked you the reply was that they were all aquatic.

They haven't guessed at this. I am a member of UKAPS (UK Aquatic Plant Society and I can confirm that all but the Ludwigia are not aquatic.

I would suggest that you apologise to this customer before you get a bad reputation on the planted forums which most of the UKAPS members also post on.

Your custom depends on this community and there are many of us to advise the inexperienced on these forums.

Andy

 

[ulster exile]

Well done

It's bad enough that LFS do this, but for other sellers to advertise aquatic plant collections for sale which are blatantly aren't so is disgraceful. Is there a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act here I wonder i.e. "not fit for purpose"...?

 

[SuperColey1]

Well he says this early in his advert:
ALL THE PLANTS I SEND OUT TO YOU ARE HAND PICKED AND SORTED BY MYSELF PRIOR TO PACKING AND DISPATCH TO YOU

then later he says this:
WE RECEIVE A FRESH SHIPMENT EVERY THURSDAY

Obviously he 'hand picks' them out of the box they arrive in and then sends them out which makes me confused by this other statement:
IF I WOULD NOT HAVE THE PLANT IN ONE OF MY OWN TANKS THEN I WILL NOT SEND IT TO YOU

Does he drop them in the tank for 30 secs between 'handpicking' them and packaging them?

If they are in for any longer I hope they are fishless tanks. lol

Andy

 

[cheesy feet]

10,11,12, are non aquatic, just to confirm...I had them and they rotted away after about 6 months.

 

[frozenbarb]

Number 2 is 100% Aquatic... Its Lobelia Cardinalis var`Dwarf
grown emerged.

You should know if you have that plant.

Plus it is hard to disguise aquatic plants that have been grown emerged.. 5-6 looks like a emerged growth or something. Put it in a bowl or tank with some lights.

5-6 is the only one that i have a feel it can be grown submerged.

 

[SuperColey1]

It doesn't look like Lobelia Cardinalis to me either emersed or submerged growth. The leaves are too fat and I cant see a point on the end of them which I would expect. Another thing I notice is that the leaves are Green on top and red under when I would expect this plant to either go red both sides or remain green.

This is a picture of a Lobelia grown emersed and you will notice it is much lighter green and hasthinner leaves with definate points to them.
http/www.plantgeek.net/images/plantpics/lobelia2.jpg

I've never owned this plant though so I will bow to experience on this one as I am just going by piccies.

Andy