Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 14 - Jul 19
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
is sansevieria a dracaena LaurentiiDracaena (Sansevieria) trifasciata 'Laurentii' Dracaena trifasciata 'Laurentii' is the familiar yellow edged snake plant, with tall sword shaped leaves rising in firm fans from the base. Each leaf has a deep green centre marked with softer grey green horizontal banding, framed by clear yellow margins that make the leaf shape stand out even from a distance. The result is strong, recognisable and clear in a pot. This cultivar brings height in a slim
Dracaena (Sansevieria) trifasciata 'Laurentii'
Dracaena trifasciata 'Laurentii' is the familiar yellow-edged snake plant, with tall sword-shaped leaves rising in firm fans from the base. Each leaf has a deep green centre marked with softer grey-green horizontal banding, framed by clear yellow margins that make the leaf shape stand out even from a distance. The result is strong, recognisable and clear in a pot.
This cultivar brings height in a slim space. It grows from a rhizome, so new leaves appear as basal shoots beside the older fans. Over time, a young plant becomes a fuller clump as fresh leaves push up from the base and add more layers to the yellow-edged outline.
Classic yellow margins on tall sword leaves
- Leaf shape: Tall, sword-like blades create a strong vertical line.
- Colour contrast: Yellow margins frame the banded green centre of each leaf.
- Growth base: The rhizome sends up new leaves beside older fans, gradually thickening the clump.
- Indoor placement: It gives height while taking up limited floor or shelf space.
- Longevity: Mature leaves stay firm for a long time when the root zone is kept warm, airy and dry between waterings.
Rhizome storage and dry intervals
Dracaena trifasciata is a rhizomatous species from seasonally dry tropical parts of Africa. 'Laurentii' stores water in thick leaves and depends on oxygen around the rhizome after watering. The plant handles dry intervals well because the leaves and underground structure are built for moisture storage.
'Laurentii' keeps the strong leaf form of the species and adds bright marginal colouring. The yellow edges are part of the cultivar’s visual identity, while the grey-green striping across the blade gives the centre more depth. Mature leaves can become tall and rigid, so the pot should be stable enough to balance the top growth.
Growth is usually slow indoors, especially in winter or away from bright windows. New shoots may appear narrow at first before expanding into stronger leaves. A slightly snug pot keeps the rhizome stable and lets the substrate dry at a predictable pace.
Care for tall yellow-edged leaves
- Light: In bright indirect light, new leaves stay sturdier and the contrast remains clearer. In lower light, the plant grows more slowly and the pot needs longer drying time.
- Watering: Wait until the potting mix has dried deeply, then water evenly and let the pot drain fully. The next watering should come after the lower mix has dried again.
- Substrate: Use a free-draining mix with pumice, lava rock, coarse sand or fine bark. Mineral structure keeps air around the rhizome.
- Pot choice: A pot with drainage holes and enough weight for tall leaves keeps the plant steady.
- Temperature: Keep it in normal indoor warmth, ideally around 18–27 °C. Warm conditions help the root zone recover after watering.
- Humidity: Average household humidity is sufficient.
- Feeding: Use a diluted balanced or cactus fertiliser during active growth. Light feeding matches the plant’s slow rhizome growth.
- Repotting: Repot when new shoots crowd the pot, the container starts to distort or the substrate has broken down. A modest size increase is enough.
- Propagation: Division preserves the yellow-edged pattern. Leaf cuttings can root and may produce green plants.
Yellow-edge stress signs
- Soft leaf bases: Inspect the substrate depth, cover pot and rhizome area. Softness near the soil line usually means the lower plant stayed damp for too long.
- Wrinkled leaves: Check the root system before adding more water. Dryness and damaged roots can both produce a wrinkled leaf surface.
- Brown margins: Review irregular watering, mineral buildup, old knocks and cold air exposure. Remove only the dry edge if trimming is needed.
- Leaning leaves: Rotate the pot and check whether new shoots are pressing older leaves sideways. Mature plants may need a heavier pot for a steady base.
- Paused growth: Growth often slows in winter. Check light and warmth first, then adjust feeding during active growth if needed.
Safety for shared spaces
Keep Dracaena trifasciata 'Laurentii' out of reach of pets and small children who may chew the leaves. Snake plants contain saponins, which can cause nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea in cats and dogs if ingested. The tall, firm leaves also need a secure spot where the pot stays steady.
Botanical name of the classic snake plant
The accepted botanical name for the species is Dracaena trifasciata, while Sansevieria trifasciata remains the older name still widely used in plant shops and care guides. The genus name Dracaena comes from the Greek drakaina, meaning “female dragon”, a name historically linked to red resin in some dragon tree relatives. The species epithet trifasciata means “three-banded” or “marked with three bands”, referring to the banded pattern associated with the species.
Dracaena trifasciata 'Laurentii' has tall green leaves, yellow margins and one of the most recognisable snake plant forms.
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- 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
4.8 ★★★★★
Based on 2133 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 5
Enlightening!
Format: Paperback
A history of Monroe's discoveries and seminars
I took his seminars in the 1993-4 periods
Excellent beyond my expectations
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 3, 2025
★★★★★ 5
Excellent trilogy. This is book 2
Format: Paperback
Bob Monroe is an OG OBE G. Love this trilogy. If you can read, read this
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on August 25, 2025
★★★★★ 5
Great (excellent) details for the date written
Format: Paperback
NOTE: I toned this version down in 2021 – I was in a bad place when I wrote the original and there were some hostile and entirely inaccurate personal remarks in it.
A few tables/charts with a wealth of information have tiny text but most of this was easy enough to read. The photos are poorly produced (at least in the paperback version I reviewed), which is sad given they would be so handy otherwise.
This is a classic post-war treatise on the weapons used for ground warfare during World War II by the U.S. Army and as such the Marines. It was first published around 1947 when the war was fresh and doubtlessly numerous technical details were still classified. It was written by a man intimately involved in many design projects. The coverage pretty much explains the breadth.
Examples of use are included for some weapons and detailed tables of data for many. He explains references to the "long primer" for the 76-mm gun and the 81-mm mortar T1 extension tube. I am happy to have bought it for that and numerous other details.
One thing I missed when I first wrote the original rambling, a bit over the top review back in September 2015 was that the 57mm M1 antitank gun is not mentioned even though it was a key component of Infantry weaponry in 1944-45, sometimes maligned but often quite effective when carefully used as noted in many, many detailed accounts. Perhaps it was skipped because it was a revision of the British 6 pounder and not designed by Barnes men? Yet, it is an example of the issues caused by the pre war budget minders forcing the Army into desperate choices as explained later – and the using arms who decided to adopt it almost at the last minute, late in 1943. Until a weapon is adopted by the Army ammunition cannot be developed – it costs too much money and time to do so.
Most of the book is positive and ignores failures, posed from the viewpoint of a proud designer not an actual user. Yet those failures illustrate the issues Ordnance had to deal with during the war. The U.S. invented the bazooka as the 2.36-inch model in 1942 yet the Germans fielded the more powerful 8.8-cm (88mm) model in 1944; and the U.S. did not get the 3.5-inch (90mm) into production-ready state until the war was ended. This was caused by offloading development onto people who went out for a “super rocket launcher” that had no place in the war. All too often, some excited designers did indeed get ahead of themselves when it came to what worked but was a bit too much (and ultimately impractical for the Army at the time). The inability to develop hollow-charge (HEAT) ammo for cannon and howitzers to reach its minimum potential (twice the caliber in penetration or better) was common for all countries including the U.S. The 105mm howitzer round was pretty good and while disparaged by all and sundry even the 75mm howitzer’s shell could (and did) take out medium armor.
Barnes refers to the M3 and M5 light tank as "excellent" when the tanker's epithet would have been "tin plated coffin with a pea-shooter". Here we have an issue with comparing numbers such as armor thickness and penetration power of guns to facts; it is common to think they were butchered such as in Africa when in fact they fought well enough, flaws and all. But they were not the weapons the tankers wanted (nor deserved), and thus tanker’s complaints were valid. And, yes, they were not seen as a prime resource for fighting German tanks and hence reverted to recon and infantry support roles. Where they continued to meet and destroy German armor (but also be destroyed). Any German field commander would have loved to have a battalion of M5s on hand chasing down and chewing up U.S. troops; the contribution of the men in the light tanks in Europe in 1944 and 1945 is all too often belittled by the “number nerds” who toss the light tanks off as useless. They were anything but useless.
Why were the M10, M18, and M36 designed as “Gun Motor Carriages” and not tanks? Because they were developed for the tank destroyer forces and the very bigoted officers who held the most sway on development wanted them to be nothing but “motorized antitank guns”. If they had been designed as tanks that would have invalidated Tank Destroyer Doctrine immediately. And yet, in the end, the men doing the fighting needed and wanted tanks, so they used them as tanks as much as they could, despite the open roof and lack of internal machine guns. It is claimed the gun motor carriages were cheaper than tanks (a specious argument given price varied by manufacturer and ultimately depended more on quantities produced not some arbitrary raw number) but to produce the gun motor carriages for a specialist role that was neither tank nor artillery (albeit they were used for both) was a costly thing to do.
The failure to develop a better light tank in time is not mentioned even though the T7 light tank with a 57-mm gun was ready in mid-1942 and could have been in the field around 1943 (the Armored Forces botched that one). The M24 was a nice tank but too late simply because development came too late because development had been stunted badly by congress and it’s miserly pre-1941 budget.
There are errors: The design of the M24 began in 1943, not 1945. The 76-mm gun could hardly penetrate the "...heaviest German tank armor." But it could penetrate a lot of armor and the myth that all German tanks were Tigers and Panthers is one of those fantasies of the war pursued by people who are glorifying the war not understanding it (most German armor was medium or lighter), let alone the myth that they were always met head-on is ridiculous. The 90-mm gun was not optimized for anti-tank use and hence had the same issues with dealing with the frontal armor of the Panther (though it could handle the Tiger) and yet was better at that than many other guns. The tendency to adapt anti-aircraft guns for anti-tank guns was common and is where Germany got its 88s and the 128mm. The U.S. found it did not need a lot of 90mms (the homeland was not threatened and what it produced was enough for its needs); there was never the demand for a higher altitude version and hence nothing like the 8.8cm FLAK 41 was developed which led to the 8.8cm Kwk43 and Pak43s; yet Ordnance built their own versions of hot 90mm for tank use.
I missed the boat in my original review failing to detail how the Army’s main issue was the budget provided by Congress and politicians from 1920 through 1940. They starved the Army; the U.S. was peaceful and they had no interest in making it a military country and as such kept the Army small (and starved the air forces and Navy as well but not as badly). This crippled development; while the Soviets started building a modern Army in 1930 complete with investment in tank forces and tank arsenals; the Germans in 1934 or so; and British in 1934 or so; the U.S. politicians did not begin serious spending on the Army until 1941. Before then, the budget was all about “beans, bullets, and bayonets” and of course bodes to wield them. The Army had to struggle with what it had and put to field what was practical not what was best. Thus, for example, the recoilless rifles (used by the Germans in 1940) did not arrive in U.S. use until 1945. And yet a U.S. officer bult the first recoilless rifle to be used way back around 1916.
Indeed, a brief little discussion on how the U.S. produced what it did based on budget would have opened many eyes. The Soviets produced so many thousand T34s for example, more than the U.S. – and in the U.S. the budget people were always saying, “You don’t need any more, stop building them!” As mentioned, the number of 90mm AA guns the U.S. produced was not based on manufacturing capacity but because they didn’t need more.
Thus - there is a lot of information and many details many people will never have heard before. There are also many missing details concerning the Ordnance Department struggles to get things done in a very brief time frame thanks to how Congress had refused to let them do anything earlier. Dig into that deeper and you might find it nauseating the way people played games that hindered the U.S. Army in its job of helping beat the Germans. And sometimes couldn't put 2 and 2 together to get the right answer. But, they were human after all, and people do make mistakes.
In my original review I argued that “If you want a politics free book you will not get it in this once, not unless you shut your eyes and remain ignorant . . .” but that is wrong. If this was a political book, Barnes might have ripped the budget mongers of the 1920s and 1930s a new sphincter for leaving the Army (and U.S. military as a whole) in such a bad situation as they did when war broke out. But, Barnes had more class than I do.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 19, 2015
★★★★★ 5
Good content, very small print and photos
Format: Paperback
Get a magnifying glass… the print is tiny. They must have made this book to be a large hard cover because both the print and the photos are so small in paperback. Content looks decent. It’s a gift for my grandson who will probably spend more time with the photos than the reading anyway and his eyesight is better than mine. :D
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on December 16, 2025
★★★★★ 4
Printing not up to standards.
Format: Paperback
Printing and pics not up to par.I gifted this book to a coworker and he was not as picky as I.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 8, 2020
recommand products
Lavender Hair Oil With Vitamin E
23.50
Tea Tree Essential Oil – www.ybneos.com
28.00
Lavender Mint Nourishing Oil | Tea Tree
29.13
GARDEN DEBUT 7 gal. Thunderstruck Lavender Skies Deciduous Flowering Crape Myrtle Tree (Lagerstroemia Indica) with Purple Flowers
25.11
Artificial Lavender Topiary Trees: Year-Round Purple Blooms
21.49