SKU: 68596927376
snake plant vs mother in law plant

snake plant vs mother in law plant Mother in Law Plant ‘Sansevieria trifasciata’ Snake Plant

$20.48 $22.75
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on mivipcard.com >

Pay in installments of $5.69 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Aug 7 - Aug 12

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

snake plant vs mother in law plant Mother in Law Plant ‘Sansevieria trifasciata’ Snake PlantIntroducing the Mother in law plant, known as Sansevieria trifasciata (syn. Dracaena trifasciata), a popular hardy houseplant that belongs to the Sansevieria snake plant genus. Native to West Africa, the Sansevieria trifasciata has several other names such as the mother in law tongue plant, Viper's Bowstring Hemp, Saint George's Sword, and Devil's Tongue. These names often refer to the long, sword like leaves that resemble the sharp tongue of a snake.

Introducing the Mother-in-law plant, known as Sansevieria trifasciata (syn. Dracaena trifasciata), a popular hardy houseplant that belongs to the Sansevieria snake plant genus. 

Native to West Africa, the Sansevieria trifasciata has several other names such as the mother-in-law tongue plant, Viper's Bowstring Hemp, Saint George's Sword, and Devil's Tongue. These names often refer to the long, sword-like leaves that resemble the sharp tongue of a snake. This attractive, low-maintenance houseplant can tolerate drought and low light, making it an excellent choice for offices. 

Like other snake plants, these Sansevieria trifasciata mother-in-law tongue plants are known for their tall, upright leaves that grow in a rosette pattern.

These thick and fleshy dark green leaves have variegated patterns of light gray-green.

The leaves can grow up to 12 feet tall in their native habitat, but when grown indoors, they can grow as tall as 2 feet, adding a dramatic touch to any space.  

The mother-in-law tongue flowers are greenish-white and appear on long stalks that rise above the leaves from spring to summer. These Night-blooming snake plant flowers are fragrant and have a lily-like appearance. However, it's important to note that snake plant blooming is relatively rare indoors, and most Snake plant varieties are appreciated for their attractive leaves rather than their blooms. 

Mother in Law Plant Key Features & Benefits

  1. NASA identified the Mother-in-Law Plant as a top air-purifying plant, effective at removing toxins like formaldehyde and toluene.
  2. Its waxy, upright leaves help reduce water loss, making it highly drought-tolerant.
  3. It is considered a symbol of good luck and protection in various cultures, often placed indoors for positive energy.
  4. The Mother-in-law snake plant filters indoor air, supports better mental health, and may reduce allergies, with a lifespan of 5–25 years.
  5. The snake plant releases oxygen at night, making it a great plant for improving bedroom air quality while you sleep.

The Dracaena trifasciata is an excellent beginner plant because of its adaptability to various growing conditions and its easy-to-grow nature, making it a decorative addition indoors.

Other popular snake plants are: the variegated snake plant with yellow variegated edges, the Zeylanica snake plant, the Bird's nest snake plant, and the Cylindrical snake plant. 

When and How to Water Your Snake Plant 

The mother-in-law's tongue plant is known for its ability to tolerate drought and is relatively low maintenance when it comes to watering. In general, it's best to allow the soil to dry out between waterings to avoid overwatering, which can lead to root rot. Your Snake plant prefers watering once every 2-3 weeks in the growing season and once every 4-6 weeks in the dormant season.

In the spring and summer, during the growing season, you can water your mother-in-law plant about once every 2-3 weeks. Be sure to thoroughly saturate the soil, allowing the water to drain out of the bottom of the pot to prevent waterlogged roots. 

In the winter months, when the plant is in a dormant phase, you can reduce watering frequency to once every 4-6 weeks. This allows your mother-in-law's snake plant to rest and prevents overwatering during its slower growth period. 

You can check the moisture level of the soil by sticking your finger about an inch or two into the soil. If it feels dry at that depth, it's a good indication that it's time to water. However, if the soil still feels slightly moist, it's best to wait a bit longer before watering. 

Light Requirements - Where to Place Your Mother-in-Law Plant 

When growing indoors, your snake plants will thrive and grow best in bright, indirect light for 4-6 hours a day.

Placing your Snake plants near a window where they can receive filtered sunlight throughout the day is ideal.

However, they can also tolerate artificial light, making them suitable for offices or rooms with limited natural light. 

When growing outdoors, the Snake plants Sansevieria, prefers bright, indirect light for at least 4-6 hours a day. They can tolerate some direct sunlight, but it's best to provide them with some shade during the hottest parts of the day, especially in regions with intense sunlight. Partial shade or filtered sunlight is generally ideal for outdoor Sensevieria trifasciata Snake plants. 

Optimal Soil & Fertilizer Needs 

The Sansevieria trifasciata favors very airy, sandy potting soil that drains well and should be fertilized once a year in spring. Planting them in ordinary soil will result in compacted roots, stunted growth, and most likely root rot. Instead, make or buy a well-drained cactus potting mix, or ideally use our specialized succulent potting mix that contains 5 natural substrates and mycorrhizae to promote the development of a strong root system that helps your Snake plants to thrive. 

As for fertilizer, the mother-in-law’s tongue plants are not heavy feeders; you can apply a diluted, balanced NPK (5-10-5) liquid fertilizer once a year during the growing season, which is typically spring. It's best to use a general-purpose houseplant fertilizer and dilute it to half the recommended strength.

Remember, it's important not to over-fertilize your Sansevieria Snake plant, as this can lead to the build-up of salt in the soil. This can cause damage to the roots and negatively impact the overall health of the plant. So, when in doubt, it's better to err on the side of caution and fertilize sparingly. 

Hardiness Zones & More 

In the United States, this is mostly an indoor plant, but if you live in southern Florida or Hawaii, then you can cultivate it outdoors in USDA zones 9-11.

In colder zones, the succulent plant Snake Sansevieria can still be grown, but it will need to be grown indoors or in a greenhouse during the winter months to protect it from freezing temperatures. 

While household humidity is generally good enough, these large snake plants will do even better with some extra moisture in the air. Please set up a humidifier nearby or grow them in naturally humid rooms like your bathroom or kitchen. 

How to Best Grow Snake Plant Indoors

When grown indoors, these adorable mother-in-law tongue plants thrive in warm and humid conditions, making them perfect for cozy indoor spaces. With temperatures between 60°F and 75°F, this lovable Dracaena trifasciata is sure to feel right at home. Just make sure not to let them get too chilly - anything below 50°F could spell disaster for your lovey-dovey snake plants.

Wildlife - Snake Plant Attracts the Following Friendly Pollinators

The Mother-in-law's Snake plant is a popular houseplant that is known to attract friendly pollinators such as bees, hummingbirds, and butterflies. These pollinators are drawn to the plant's unique flowers, which emit a sweet scent and provide a source of nectar. By welcoming these beneficial insects into your home or garden, you can help support local ecosystems and promote biodiversity.

Butterflies
Bees
Hummingbirds
Lady Bugs
Multi Pollinators
Other Birds

According to ASPCA, the mother-in-law plant is mildly toxic if ingested, primarily due to the presence of saponins. These compounds can cause gastrointestinal distress in both humans and animals, with symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. However, it is safe to touch and handle, making it a popular choice for indoor plants in homes with pets or children.

How to Propagate Your Mother-in-Law's Plant

For mother-in-law snake plant propagation, you can do this easily by offsets and leaf cuttings. When the plants grow at least four inches tall, divide or take cuttings of the healthy leaves to propagate your snake plant in the spring or summer. New shoots can also be potted on their own.

Repotting a snake plant is crucial for its care, recommended every three to five years. It's important to notice roots growing out of the pot's holes, water draining too quickly, roots filling the container, stunted growth, and a dull appearance.

Key Takeaways

  1. The Sansevieria trifasciata is commonly called the “Snake Plant” due to its long, upright leaves with wavy, green banding that resembles snake skin.
  2. This plant was featured in NASA’s Clean Air Study, which found it effective at filtering indoor air pollutants like formaldehyde, benzene, and trichloroethylene.
  3. It is considered a symbol of good luck and positive energy in Feng Shui, often placed near entrances or workspaces to promote protection and prosperity.
  4. The plant is extremely drought-tolerant, storing water in its thick, upright leaves and thriving with very little attention.
  5. This mother-in-law snake plant is one of the easiest houseplants to grow, making it a favorite for beginners and those with busy lifestyles.

Final Thoughts

Overall, the Snake plant or Mother-in-law plant (Dracaena trifasciata) is a low-maintenance houseplant that thrives in a variety of conditions. It is native to West Africa and is well-known for its ability to tolerate neglect and survive in low-light environments. This mother-in-law plant has long, sword-shaped leaves that are typically dark green with light green horizontal stripes, giving it a unique and striking appearance. In terms of snake plant care, it prefers a well-drained potting mix with terra cotta pots and only needs to be watered sparingly, as overwatering can lead to root rot. Additionally, it can tolerate a warm indoor temperature between 60-75 degrees Fahrenheit and does not require frequent fertilization.

Whether you're a beginner or an experienced plant lover, the Dracaena trifasciata Snake plant for sale is a fantastic choice that will bring beauty and freshness to your home or office.

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 68596927376

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell snake plant vs mother in law plant

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.6 ★★★★★
Based on 26 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
A
[email protected]
Boise, US
★★★★★ 3
Good to excellent content - terrible publishing policy
Format: Hardcover
Lewis (Not "Flewis") wrote a decent text a number of years ago. It was then expanded to a companion volume (Analytical Sedimentology) with another author. The two nicely complement each other but the mind boggles at a price of almost $100 per each. The publisher has clearly made little effort to control the cost. Redundancy between the two volumes is excessive, hard cover rather than soft is used and, indeed, both could easily have been combined in one less pricey volume. A valuable resource to students and professionals has therefore been compromised by publisher, author or both due to ignorance, greed or stupidity. A terrible shame!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on January 5, 1998
J
Verified Purchase
JMB1014
Battle Creek, US
★★★★★ 5
An Excellent Introduction to Legal and Constitutional Reasoning
Format: Hardcover
This is an excellent introductory volume for people who feel confused by the debate over "original intent" versus a "living Constitution." David A. Strauss is a law professor at the University of Chicago. His book is a quick read (139 pages), with no notes, bibliography or other impedimenta - just an index. It's a very lucid explanation of legal reasoning and how the Supreme Court has followed this basic process over time. Hence the "living constitution" is really just an instance of the English common law tradition functioning normally. This book will teach many Americans how legal reasoning actually operates in practice. It is a common-sensical and conservative process that seeks at once to promote predictability and fairness. By and large, it has worked well. The phrase "living Constitution" has been denigrated by people who seek to turn back the calendar to a day when more "traditional" values were imposed by law. In so doing, they have invoked an historical fiction, the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. The myriad problems arising from this effort, if not its disingenuousness, have been discussed with insight and erudition by such excellent minds as Jack Rakove ("Original Meanings")and Akhil Reed Amar ("The Bill of Rights," and "The American Constitution: A Biography"), to name just two. The real point of this book, I think, is to explain basic legal reasoning to a mass audience. This does a great service. It also shows how naturally the common law evolves, how it tends to restrain judicial activism and yet to permit flexibility as times and circumstances change. As Dean Roscoe Pound of the Harvard Law School put it in his book, "The Spirit of the Common Law," the common law is "essentially a mode of judicial and juristic thinking, a mode of treating legal problems rather than a fixed body of definite rules...." This is a critical distinction. Some so-called conservatives insist that judges must simply apply the law like automatons, as if it were a "fixed body of definite rules." They then seek to enlist the founding fathers in declaring what those rules are, or how definite they must be. But as Dean Pound and centuries of legal history demonstrate, this notion is far removed from the truth, and remote from any useful notion of adjudication. All Anglophone law schools, lawyers and judges are engaged in the process Dean Pound discusses. The common law tradition arose in England over the course of centuries. We imported it to this country in part because it was workable and practical, and because it was brilliantly and systematically expounded by Chief Justice Edward Coke in the 17th century and by Lord William Blackstone shortly before the American Revolution. No one would suggest that the common law tradition means the law is the captive of judges' subjective whims. Such an assertion would have sounded ludicrous to the English as well as to the founders. But as Strauss - and volumes of legal history - unsurprisingly demonstrate, the common law tradition is the key to constitutional interpretation. The common law is an inherently conservative instrument. It evolves incrementally. Those who complain about the "living Constitution" argue that judges merely rule according to their subjective prejudices. They contend that it is the legislative branch that should be charged with interpreting the Constitution. Of course, all three branches of government must interpret the Constitution from time to time. But the legislative branch should not have the last word in determining whether its own enactments meet constitutional scrutiny: To borrow from Chief Justice Coke, no one (including the legislature) may be the judge of his own cause. The function of determining whether legislation conforms to the Constitution has been and still is wisely confided to the courts, which by virtue of centuries of practice (as reflected in published opinions) have substantial expertise in the area and are independent. One also hears complaints that judges are insulated from reality. But courts are not insulated - they are independent. And they are independent precisely so they are not subject to being influenced by lobbyists or terrified by a challenger in a primary election. To show how the common law works, Strauss discusses the evolution of constitutional thought in relation to two major issues: freedom of speech and segregation in public schools. He explains how the "clear and present danger" test in freedom of speech cases evolved, implicating not just such considerations as the threat of imminent harm, but also that some kinds of speech have lower societal value (libel, obscenity, fighting words), while other kinds of speech have more societal value (great literature, political speech). Strauss goes on to discuss how Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was far less a radical overturning of an entrenched precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), than a logical step in the development of the law. In so doing, he uses an example from the law of torts, where customers injured by dangerous products originally were barred from suing the manufacturer unless they had a contractual relationship with it. At first, the fact that a product was inherently dangerous overcame the requirement of a contractual relationship. As it became harder to draw a line between ordinary products and those that were inherently dangerous, however, the old requirement of a contractual relationship was found to have outworn its purpose and customers were permitted to sue the manufacturer who had created a foreseeable risk of harm. Thus, in products liability cases, as in racial equality cases, the law evolved to meet the new demands posed by changed circumstances. Strauss shows the development of the law by discussing cases on racial equality decided after Plessy that gradually undercut the Plessy decision until it was no longer tenable. Strauss does what law professors do every day: teach the law by showing how it evolved. His explanation, however, is so concise and clear that it makes the discussion seem not just sensible but compelling. Thus we see that the law works. As Strauss points out, we never wrangle over some constitutional issues because they are cut and dried (you have to be 30 years old to be a senator) or because certainty is required (January 20 is the day the new president takes office, no matter how unstable the current domestic or world situation). Other provisions require more effort to interpret, but this is because the founders brilliantly provided that some matters could be spelled out specifically in advance, while others would have to be expressed in more general terms, which could be adjusted to changing needs and times (e.g., the "necessary and proper" clause in Article I, Sec. 8). Interestingly, Strauss does not consider amendments to the Constitution to be part of what makes it a living document, since the amendment process is so onerous, slow, and seldom used. He points out how some amendments merely ratified the status quo, or served to clean up outliers, resolved technical issues, or were ahead of their time. As he offers these judgments, which seem balanced and reasonable, he also explains some of the less familiar amendments in a way that will have readers raising their eyebrows and saying "Oh, so that's where that came from." At the outset of the book, Strauss sets out three objections to originalism: That it is often, as a practical matter, impossible even for professional historians to discover what the intentions were of various founders with respect to matters discussed in the Constitution. That even if an intent of the founders could be discovered, it would pertain to the understanding they had about their world: how does one go about trying to fit that understanding to our world? That as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, one generation is to another as one sovereign nation is to another. The world belongs to the living. The notions of people long dead cannot bind us in the present or future. Strauss correctly observes that the third of these objections is by itself fatal to originalism. The founders were not so impressed with themselves that they felt their "intentions" should be forever imposed on posterity. Had they been dedicated to such a dubious project, they would surely have done a better job of documenting their debates and compromises during the Philadelphia convention. But little remains of those deliberations aside from the notes kept by James Madison. The Constitution, moreover, reflects their understanding that the future could not be shackled forever to the time in which they lived. They realized that the slave trade, for example, would prove intolerable and therefore provided that it could be abolished by at least 1808. So was their "original intent" to permit the slave trade, or was it that the slave trade should be abolished? And what does this say, if anything, about their intentions toward the institution of slavery - a word that did not even appear in the Constitution until the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted in 1865? Most damning of all to the originalist position is what Thomas Jefferson said on the subject. In a letter dated July 12, 1816, to Samuel Kercheval, Jefferson wrote "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." He added, "Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs." He even called for revision of the constitution at stated periods. While originalists would love to claim Jefferson as one of their own, his words - and indeed his whole life - prove that he was completely at odds with their approach. Men like Jefferson and Franklin, who were devotees of science, were fascinated by the progress men could make in trying to understand and improve their lives. Jefferson was an eager student of nature and did considerable experimentation with crops on his plantation. He famously wrote his "Notes on the State of Virginia" to refute the widely read claims of the French naturalist Buffon about the supposedly weak, degenerate, and insipid life forms to be found in the New World. The idea that such men, who were committed to the growth of knowledge, would seek to confine all future generations to the limited understanding they possessed of the universe in 1787, is worse than laughable. It can only be explained by the polemical purposes of those whose arguments for a regressive social order are so feeble that they have to seek refuge behind an imaginary "original intent" that they erect - as if the founders wanted their limited knowledge and often unarticulated, conflicting, or ambivalent intentions to restrict the great national experiment forever. Given the explicit language of Thomas Jefferson, quoted above, it is apparent that "originalism" actually belies and defies the express intent of Jefferson, one of the most eminent of the founders. It seems paradoxical but it was his original intent that his original intent should not govern future generations! Original intent also appears anomalously restrictive when one considers that the founders never contemplated the existence of an Air Force, though they expressly provided for the Army and the Navy. And ask an originalist what the original intent was with respect to the Second Amendment's use of the term "arms." The founders had no concept of assault rifles or machine guns, let alone nerve gas, laser-guided bombs, predator drones, or nuclear weapons. How do we impose an intention on them to assert what they could not have foreseen, namely, that ordinary householders in the 21st century should have a personal, constitutional right to be able to obliterate a small army in a matter of seconds, based on the founders' notions about the 18th century saber, musket or pistol? Likewise, the Eleventh Amendment says nothing to prohibit a person from suing her own state - just other states. Yet even "textualists" read an unwritten provision into the Eleventh Amendment because it suits their view of how "sovereign" the states should be. When given this kind of a taste of their own medicine, originalists collapse in helpless sputtering and exasperation. Exposed to Strauss' very sensible discussion, the concerns of originalists reflect opportunism and disingenuousness. After all, we should not expect lawyers and judges to become armchair historians, especially under the time pressures of litigation and in the face of hotly contested issues. We should not pretend the founders had some monolithic intent, least of all with respect to matters of which they had no concept. And as Jefferson pointed out, the relationship of one generation to another is like that of one sovereign nation to another: we cannot expect to bind future generations by the intentions of people who are long since dead. In short, there will always be those who resist change and those who welcome it. If you really want to see "judicial activism" at work, you will not find much of it in the common law tradition. A far better example is the recent decision - by the so-called conservatives on the Supreme Court - in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
B
Verified Purchase
Benjamin Douglass
Cuba, US
★★★★★ 5
An Excellent Read
Format: Kindle
The author talks about our constitution as a "living document" and expertly draws the distinction between this and the originalist interpretation as a "dead document."
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 5, 2018
F
Verified Purchase
Frederick S. Goethel
Louisville, US
★★★★★ 4
The Constitution: A Living or Static Document
Format: Hardcover
There has been a debate over the past several decades on whether the US Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted according to current mores and standards or whether it is a static document that should be interpreted using only the meaning found in the original wording of the document. The author, in this book, makes the case that the Constitution is, in fact, a living document that should be interpreted by modern standards and by using principles of common law. There are examples given that, quite frankly, are very persuasive. For instance, if the Constitution were interpreted using original language, we would not have the freedom of speech that we now enjoy. A careful reading of the First Amendment will show that only Congress was prohibited from making laws that abridged free speech. There were no constraints on the states or on other governmental bodies. Whether or not you agree with the author on how the Constitution should be interpreted, this book will make for some though provoking reading and interesting discussion. The book was well written, fairly easy to understand and should be read by all who are concerned about where the Supreme Court is now and where it is headed.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 23, 2010
G
Verified Purchase
garynini
West Palm Beach, US
★★★★★ 5
Clear, cogent, and illuminating
Format: Kindle
Clear, cogent, and illuminating explanation of the difference between two approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalism and the Living Constitution
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2015

recommand products

Mini Wood Indoor Plant Stand with Ceramic Pot
25.71
Wooden 3-Tier Plant Pots Stand Ladder Shelf for Outdoor-Wehomz – WEHOMZ
23.52
Plant Stand Indoor, Outdoor Wood Plant Stands For Multiple Plants, Pla
27.45
GIANT Thai constellation monstera *NAPA PICK UP OR DELIVERY ONLY*
23.68
Tribesigns Plant Stand, 7 Tier Plant Pots Holder Rack Flower Shelf-Tribesigns
27.36