I'll try to help you get started finding info, but must admit not trying to grow these frustrating plants anymore. I never did get the watering timing right, and they died. I moved on to less fussy plants a long time ago. First, there are at least two genus' of 'rock' plants, most from S. Africa and Namibia: Split Rock plant = Pleiospilos nelii and a few other species in this genus. Another common genus for rock mimics is Lithops, there are many species. Now, some less than expert answers to your questions: 1. Will they survive a sunless Alaskan Winter? Possibly, assuming they are not subjected to prolonged freezing temps. These plants need NO water in winter, when they are dormant. 2. Dormancy: Winter 3. Direct sunlight: probably not a good idea. 4. They live several years, each year resorbing the water from the pair of leaves, and then making new leaves that emerge in the Spring. While they are resorbing last years leaves, water is deadly. 5. Are they tough? Depends on who you ask. Me, I think they're fickle and unforgiving. 6. Huge, colorful, daisy-like flowers in Spring. 7. The root system is larger than would be expected from such small plants. 8. They are about two-inches in diameter, and that is as big as they will ever be. They can form nice clumps, however. 9. Cactus soil? Use something even more free-draining. ;) They are supposed to be hardy to about freezing. I'm not sure I believe that info. Water sparingly in Spring and Summer while new leaves are growing. No water in Winter, or any time the plant is resorbing older leaves. Plant in containers large enough for root system. Propagate from seed, or pups. They are mature in a year or two, then its just out with the old, and in with the new. Only 1-2 leaf pairs at a time Names: look up Lithops, and Pleiospilos. Pronounce them any way you want, just get the spelling right ;) I'm sorry that isn't much help. Bottom line, they are tricky plants, probably especially so in your indoor climate. I hope I am not too discouraging. They are worth a try, just be prepared to fail.

The discussion reminds me of a story from my grad school days. One of the professors was an Asian fellow named Dr. Hu. When he first introduced himself he pronounced his name "Dr. Hugh", and that was how I subsequently referred to him. One day when talking about him with several of the other students, I was asked why I said his name that way since everyone else pronounced his name "Dr. Who". When I replied that that was how he himself pronounced his name so it had to be correct, I was informed that he only said it that way because of his accent. I thought this was a very funny statement but the other student was in earnest, the implication being that since I do not speak with a Chinese accent I should say the name the right way, "Dr. Hu". To this day, it still makes me chuckle to think of the student who believed that Dr. Hu prounced his own name wrong. Alex

There is no wrong way. Either way and any way is fine. If anyone tells you differently explain to them that scientific nomenclature is a written system of names and was never intended to be corrected if pronounced wrong, there is no wrong way. To be more precise, officially you are to use the type of latin pronunciation used in the church, in the region, at the time of Carolus Linnaeus the person who thought up the system. And there are rules about accenting the third from the last syllable and such, but few people obey them anymore. One point to be made is that this system of names is used for all living things, not just plants. So it should never be called botanical name or botanical latin name. They use this same system to name fossils and bacteria and fungus and animals, etc. Personally I prefer to come up with the most obscure pronunciation as possible just to throw people off. Always good for a laugh.

I have heard both pronunciations used on You Tube videos.. Use whichever one comes more naturally to you, I say.