SKU: 71332423693
hair succulent plant

hair succulent plant Medusa Head Plant 'Euphorbia flanaganii' 7 Gal

$25.58 $28.42
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on www.kerrimatt.com >

Pay in installments of $7.11 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 17 - Jul 22

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

hair succulent plant Medusa Head Plant 'Euphorbia flanaganii' 7 GalIntroducing the Medusa Head, also known as 'Euphorbia flanaganii', a beautiful member of the EuphorbiaGo to Euphorbia genus! In ancient Greek mythology, Medusa became a Gorgon, a female monster with snakes for hair and a gaze that could turn people into stone. The plant's unique appearance, with its twisting, snake like stems, and tufts of green leaves at the top, is said to resemble the head of Medusa, who was known for her hair made of snakes. Its

Introducing the Medusa Head, also known as 'Euphorbia flanaganii', a beautiful member of the EuphorbiaGo to Euphorbia genus!

In ancient Greek mythology, Medusa became a Gorgon, a female monster with snakes for hair and a gaze that could turn people into stone.  The plant's unique appearance, with its twisting, snake-like stems, and tufts of green leaves at the top, is said to resemble the head of Medusa, who was known for her hair made of snakes.


Its snake-like branches can spread up to 16 inches in diameter, giving this stunning medusa head succulent an almost pan-like shape.

When it comes to flowers, clusters of yellow cyathium appear in the center of the plant at the tip of the stem in the summer; it's like having a tiny sun in your own home. This is definitely its most beautiful feature.

Just wait until late winter or early spring, when tiny, brilliant yellow flowers cover this Euphorbia from head to toe.

With time, new pups will appear at the tips of its tendrils and form their own caudices - it's a never-ending cycle of bizarre beauty! This weird and wild succulent will continue to amaze as it grows into an even larger Medusa-like creation.

This medusa head is exceptionally easy to propagate by divisions and cuttings so you can quickly grow your collection with just a few simple steps. 

When and How to Water Your Medusa Plant

The Medusa head Euphorbia is a succulent that definitely stands out from the crowd! Unlike its desert-dwelling counterparts, this little guy doesn't do well with extended periods of drought. If you're lucky enough to be the proud owner of one of these unique plants, make sure to water it weekly during those hot summer months.  

During the growing season, typically spring and summer, water thoroughly when the top inch of soil is dry. In winter, reduce watering to prevent root rot.

When the soil is dry several inches below the surface, don't hesitate to give it a good soak. And get this - when your Medusa Head is feeling parched and in need of some hydration, it'll actually start curling its arms towards the center as if to say, "I'm thirsty!" So cute and clever!  

Just make sure not to overdo it and let them sit in standing water, or else they could develop root rot. 

Light Requirements - Where to Place Your Euphorbia flanaganii

When growing indoors, it thrives in bright, indirect light for at least 4-6 hours daily. Place it near a window where it can receive plenty of sunlight without being directly exposed to harsh rays.

Without enough light, photosynthesis rates drop, branches become thin, colors appear dull, there is an unhealthy look to the plant, and growth is stunted.  

For outdoor cultivation, the medusa head prefers full sun to partial shade. To ensure that your succulent thrives, provide 6-8 hours of bright light for healthy growth. 

Remember, learn to adjust your Medusa euphorbia to avoid burns if the location where you have the plant is exposed to direct sunlight. 

Optimal Soil & Fertilizer Needs

The Euphorbia head medusa prefers very airy, porous, nutrient-rich soil with a pH of 5.5 - 6.7. Succulents require fast-draining soil that dries completely between waterings. Your soil must have a sandy texture and a low water-holding capacity, just like desert soil.  Ideally, you want to use our specialized succulent potting mix that contains organic mycorrhizae to promote the development of a strong root system that helps your Euphorbia succulent to thrive.  

When it comes to fertilizing your medusas head plant, it only needs a small amount of fertilizer applied once a year in spring. Succulent prefers a fertilizer with lower doses of NPK, with a maximum ratio of 5-10-5 that is higher in phosphorus than nitrogen.

Hardiness Zones & More

When growing indoors, the Medusa head enjoys hot temperatures. They prefer constant temperatures above 65-70 degrees Fahrenheit and can tolerate triple digits in the summer, so don't worry if your succulent gets too hot.  

It prefers moderate humidity, so misting the plant occasionally or placing a humidifier nearby can help maintain its health and appearance. Avoid placing the plant near drafty windows or heating vents, as extreme temperature fluctuations can stress the plant.

For outdoor cultivation, the medusa head grows best in USDA zones 9 - 11. It cannot handle frost, cold, or freezing temperatures, so make sure it doesn't get below 30 degrees F in its environment.   

Final Thoughts

Overall, the Medusa Head Plant (Euphorbia flanaganii) is a unique succulent with thick, cylindrical stems that resemble the snakes on Medusa's head. This plant thrives in bright, indirect light and requires well-draining soil to prevent root rot. Additionally, it is important to avoid overwatering and allow the soil to dry out between waterings to keep this striking plant healthy and happy. Be sure to add Euphorbia flanaganii to your collection today and elevate the beauty of your home or garden with this stunning-looking plant. 

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: 71332423693

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell hair succulent plant

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.9 ★★★★★
Based on 22 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
P
Verified Purchase
Patrick S.
Los Angeles, US
★★★★★ 5
A fun and fulfilling book - would love to own the series
Format: Paperback
I had a lot of fun with this book. About a year ago, I really came down on the side of presuppositionalism and have studied the approach, see if it was useful against two of the leading atheistic books (God Is Not Great and The God Delusion), and now I wanted to match it up against four other views of apologetics. I will try to not go into too much detail here as I think the book is an important read for developing an apologetic standpoint. The book follows the 1)"model of Approach X is presented" then 2) "Response from other 4 approaches to counter Approach X" and then move on to the next approach. The book allows final statements from each writer for a final opportunity. Steven Cowan has a good introduction and epilogue that bookends the book well. Craig (Classical Approach) really surprised me as he brings in the role of the Holy Spirit early into the conversation. I really thought I was going to just be reading the finer points of the Kalam argument he's known for. The role of the Holy Spirit is reflected in the other authors' approaches as well and that was nice to see. It's also nice to see Craig debating with Christians for once and it's here that you really get to see his thought process contrasting with other people with the same worldview. There are issues that Craig tries to bring up against the presuppositionist view point that could be applied for him. He doesn't seem to get that all foundations are, by definition, circular because if you can appeal to something more foundational, then your foundation isn't your foundation at all. Craig seems to bring in some higher concepts about probability to make some of his points and I think that's really a miss for anyone who's not a high level philosopher (and even some philosophers might have issues understand what he's talking about here). Habermas (Evidential Approach) seems to have an undue hatred for presuppositionalism. He's also another person who doesn't realize that the approach he uses isn't really the foundation he is starting from. I think he resents doing the hard work that the other approaches then build up to. Feinberg (Cumulative Case Approach) seems to miss the point of presuppositionalism entirely. He's got the approach of what I call the "shotgun approach" in the sense that he wants to use everything possible and sees what he hits. Frame (Presuppostional Approach) does an ok job with presenting the method. I don't think he would be my first choice in representing the approach. He doesn't do a good job of explaining the "problem of circularity" isn't a problem. He just does an "ok" job. Clark (Reformed Epistemological Approach) is one I was excited to read. I liked some of his points he made when talking about the other approaches. Then I read his approach and was extremely disappointed. The biggest flaw is that he states literally that his approach doesn't help to show the Christian God is real. I would say then your apologetic method is worthless and not a real method at all. I understand the R.E. approach but if I went only with Clark's explanation and argumentation, I wouldn't have even considered it a real area of focus. The book is well laid out, the footnotes are at the bottom of the pages (SO helpful!), Cowan does a good job of wrangling the writers and offering expanded reading and other authors for each area of focus. Myself and my mentor spent from January to August every other week going over and discussing the book. Finding flaws, comparing and contrasting, and seeing where points were made and where points were missed. I think the biggest deficit we found was that the writers tended to assume agreement on definitions of words that played a big role (for example - the word "evidence" NEEDED to be defined right off the bat by every author and it wasn't until Frame in his response to the objections raised did we even have one person define it). My suggestion for this book to maximize the fun is to pick a method and try and defend that method throughout; even with the writer arguing your side. My book is filled with notes and highlights that just made this book a great enjoyment to meet and discuss with a fellow Believer about. It does not settle all the issues, but it does help you focus on the fact that we still aren't done learning yet. Final Grade - A-
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 13, 2013
L
Verified Purchase
Lyndon Unger
Louisville, US
★★★★★ 4
Great Introduction to the Various Schools of Apologetics
Format: Paperback
In reading "Five Views on Apologetics", I first had to wonder why the book was called "Five Views" and not "Three Views", since the first three authors admittedly had so much in common with each other that it seemed that their positions were subcategories of a singular system of apologetics. In fact, Habermas claimed Craig as an evidentialist on multiple occasions and admitted they had relatively minor disagreements. Feinberg was also an evidentialist, but he differed from Habermas and Craig in supposing that any one argument could possibly be persuasive to a skeptic. All three individuals definitely agreed on so much though that their three essays proved to be slightly disappointing as in the end, I figured that any one of them practically utilized a combination of all three approaches (I've heard Craig make cumulative case presentations...). I wondered exactly why they were representing different apologetic camps. Don't get me wrong: I like Craig and Hambermas and Feinberg; they're brothers in the Lord. I just find that evidentialism's off-shoots are so similar to each other that taking three chapters for the various forms of evidentialism didn't seem that worthwhile. Ironically, it seemed that the other two views of were related by what seemed like a mutual distaste for the other, Frame wrote that he "was rather disappointed at Clark's treatment of the role of the Bible in determining apologetic principles" (310) and the suggestion that Clark might not have "tried hard enough to find out what the Bible says" (310) also seemed like a needless jab, but Frame still commended Clark on plenty and suggested that "presuppositionalists too are Reformed epistemologists" (312). On the other hand, Clark wrote that Frame's essay is "the best version of presuppositionalism I have ever read" but then went on to suggest that presuppositionalism (at least as presented by Van Til) was either too confusing for him or was "obviously false" (255). Clark parroted the often repeated gross misunderstanding of presuppositionalism that "non-christians cannot know anything" (256), suggested that Frame implied this concept (257) and then spent several paragraphs refuting an obviously silly postulate; it's strange how Clark would insinuate that Frame would be so plainly stupid and I got the idea that Clark thought that all presuppositional apologists were somehow mentally lacking. Even in my early reading of Van Til, I understood that he was writing about how unbelievers cannot account for how they know anything, not whether or not they can know anything. What was even more alarming was Clarks' confession that "anyone can find some support for his or her position in Scripture" (275), as if scripture lacks a clear meaning and is somehow malleable enough to consistently conform to anyone's presuppositions. I was left dissatisfied by how Clark didn't seem to exhibit reformed theology and I was also puzzled why Frame didn't present the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (the main positive argument of presuppositionalism). What was even more humerous was how Craig presented a fairly solid version of the transcendental argument and gave Frame a slight poke for not presenting the "main course" of presuppositionalism. On the whole, I found "Five Views" to be reflective of much of my general feelings of the current state of apologetics; too distracted, too unscriptural, and too confusing. It was a difficult read at times; William Lane Craig's constant scampering into symbolic logic was frustrating and made me wonder whether the publisher clearly communicated the target audience to the authors. I was disappointed that none of the authors attempted to establish any component of their case from scriptural exegesis but instead presented philosophical constructs aided by proof texts (i.e. Habermas referenced Romans 8:16 on page 97 as `proof' that the Holy Spirit may work through apologetics to bring "full assurance to believers", arguably not the meaning of Romans 8:16). I also found myself wondering if the authors were agreeing on theological points due to lack of clarity (i.e. Craig's writing about the inner witness of the Holy Spirit was general enough that it sounded Mormon...). The book was good, and it DID expose me to five (arguably) different apologetic systems, but I hesitate to give it 5 stars due to some of the weak/unclear presentations of the systems and the thought that this isn't the best that evangelicalism has to offer. It's still a worthwhile buy and I'm likely being too hard on it. I'd recommend it as an intro book for a college level Apologetics class, or for someone who's already familiar with theology and the concept of apologetics but isn't familiar with it in depth.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 4, 2009
J
Verified Purchase
J. E. Lindsey
Draper, US
★★★★★ 5
Great Contrasts
Format: Paperback
Cowan tells us, "This is a book about apologetics methodology, not a book of apologetics per se. That is, it is not a book that seeks to do apologetics as much as a book that discusses how one ought to do apologetics" (8). Cowan has achieved the stated purposes of this book in many ways, but due to limited space I will stay focused on three examples; Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts, format, and conclusion by Cowan. Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts (21-24) in this initial section of the book provide a clear and useful starting place for persons who are not academically familiar or comfortable with many terms used in the book. The fact that the key terms section included and defined conceptual terms supports the stated purpose of the book being a methodological rather than an apologetic book with multiple views from various writers' specific understandings and preferred styles of apologetics. As a new person to formal apologetics, this section helped launch me smoothly into the methodological discussions. I returned to these pages a few times to reacquaint myself with meaningful concepts. The format of the discussion with proponents making a methodological case for their form of apologetic followed by critiques from supporters of other apologetic systems brought clarity to the five methods addressed in this book. This format help to highlight both strengths and weaknesses in methods. Cowan as the general editor achieved the goal of keeping the writers away from apologetics and on the goal of providing defense and critiques of these five methods. Each supporter had a unique "tee-up" to their sections. Craig starts by stating, "...methodology in Christian apologetics...raising the age-old issue of the relationship between faith and reason." He goes on further in his introduction to tell a story about his struggle at Wheaton College and why his methodology was helpful to his faith (26). Habermas clarifies that his form of evidential apologetics is, "...characterized as the one-step approach..." (92).This initial piece of information was insightful to me and a helpful clarification between classical and evidential methods. Feinberg on Cumulative Apologetics points out, "A good place to begin the discussion of apologetic methodology is to ask about the nature of the case for theism and Christianity" (148). Frame was probably the most direct in his initial statement by saying, "In apologetics, as in every aspect of the Christian life, the most important thing is to glorify God. Therefore, it is important for us to look in God's Word, the Bible, to see if our Lord gives us any directives relevant to the apologetic task" (208). In principle agree, but I will admit, I find his form of apologetics to be too circular in nature to be convincing to an unbelieving skeptic - as a standalone method. Christians I think would all say, well of course. Clark's section begins with stories meant to set the stage that it is reasonable have faith. Clark writes, "My suppose-this and suppose-that stories are intended to raise the problem of the relationship of our important beliefs to evidence" (267). Each of the five supporters of their method successfully introduced their unique method of apologetics. Cowan regarding to his conclusions says, "Hopefully, this will not only help you, the reader, make your own decisions regarding apologetic methodology, but will also provide a basis for further discussion of the topic among scholars. Cowan's conclusions assured that main points of agreement and disagreement were clear. Here as with the other sections, the textual comments were method focused. My criticism is pointed at the spirit of the debate. The writers did not draw enough contrasting between apologetic methods to clearly show that their individual method should be favored. I think the tone was a little too stilted in the direction of "playing" nice. In a book that purports to have five methods, there were times it seemed like only three or four methods. I guess this is inescapable give that each apologetic style can share some parts in common with another. Yet Craig shares my feeling here, I believe, based on his statement, "Pity our poor editor! Ideally he would like to find a wild-eyed fideist on one end of the spectrum and a hard-nosed theological rationalist on the other. Instead he winds up with a presuppositionalist who argues like an evidentialist..." (122). Overall Five Views on Apologetics provides a good compare and contrast resource for anyone interested in these five common methods of apologetics.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 18, 2011
M
Verified Purchase
Mimi
Whiting, US
★★★★★ 5
Condense Analysis of 5 of the most notable Apologist
Format: Paperback
Looking for a quick reference guide to the major theorist of Apologic study, this book is a great resource.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 12, 2024
W
Verified Purchase
Will L.
New York, US
★★★★★ 5
Not an Intro to Apologetics
Format: Paperback
This book is not for the first-time student of apologetics. It's deep and, at times, difficult. However, for anyone with a serious interest in apologetics, this is a great way to find out which method suits your apologetic style and why. It was eye-opening for me. I am confident that God can use most (if not all) of the five distinct methods covered in the book. But it was very helpful to me to consider pros and cons of each and decide which approach seemed appropriate for me. Great book, if you feel ready for it!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on July 25, 2006

recommand products

WDW Stroller Rental
29.93
3Dlite Double Convenience Stroller (Black)
29.56
WDW Stroller Rental
24.58
Nuna TRVL DUBL Stroller – Berg's Baby & Teen Furniture
25.33
Nuna TRVL Dubl Lightweight Side by Side Double Stroller, Caviar
21.75