Aeonium2003 said: @needrain
Here's a what the inermis form looks like:
http://www.llifle.com/Encyclop...
Yes, the plant in the picture isn't completely lacking spines, but it's definitely not as spiny as yours.
Only young growth has spines. It will shed those as it grows and ages. It nearly always has a few spines on the new growth, but not many on the plant overall and occasionally it will be bare of any spines. The seller is reliable so far as I know, and knowledgeable. Which is no guarantee of course. I know another seller/grower who is also very knowledgeable and it's not unheard of that they diverge from one another occasionally. So far as I know, they don't know each other but they might. For someone like me, I just have to be aware and place some deference and trust to those who would be considered experts by training and experience - either/or or both. I could always drop the end description and leave it E. triglochidiatus, but the name that came with its purchase is the one I've used in full. Do you think I should drop 'Inermis'?
Edit to comment further. Mine often looks quite a bit like the Llifle photos, but mine has never not had a few spines on emerging growth like the photo from Valentino Vallicelli seen on the Llifle page. I just figured there was a natural variation lurking in the gene pool.
