.jpg)
It is, however, a pretty good illustration of the overall shape and construction of the flowers, which have a certain elegant simplicity. Or maybe it's a simple elegance. And they're very good at what they do, which is why if you've had a Hypoestes phyllostachya for any length of time, you will start finding seedlings of it popping up in neighboring pots.
I go back and forth on whether I like Hypoestes: it seems like it forever needs watering or pinching. On the plus side, they're tougher than they look: Many times at work, they got too dry and collapsed, looking like they were complete goners, but then bounced back just fine after getting a little water. I've also managed to get cuttings from nearly-dead plants to come back to life with no more difficulty than one would expect from a healthy, thriving plant. So there's that. They just always look kinda . . . weedy, though, and it's all but impossible to keep them pinched back enough to prevent them from flowering, which makes them look weedier.
There will probably be a Hypoestes phyllostachya plant profile coming up relatively soon, because I have an idea for which "person" to use.
Let's see how much older than you I am...I remember this plant as being H. sanguinolenta. It was a staple in my room at ag. college 30 years ago, because it was cheerful and grew so fast even with dorm-window lighting. But I haven't had one for years.
ReplyDelete