Not sure what you mean by "clippings" of these. Sans. (short for Sansevieria, this is the correct spelling), are usually are propagated by taking whole single leaves (or divisions, pups, young plantlets that tend to rise from the base of the parent plant). I agree w/ what you've heard/read abt keeping them dry after potting up. I disagree w/ Watergal abt keeping the soil moist; a leaf being used to create a new plant has no roots a all & the leaf itself will have enough water reserves to get it started w/out watering. Also keeping the soil moist tends to rot the leaf before it can take root. This takes a long time, can take up to a year! There's lots of info. on how to do this; try searching at the Cactus & Succulent Forum & also pls. check the Sansevieria Forum, also at GW. Try for somehting like "starting Sans. from leaves" or "starting Snake Plants from leaves".

The first sansiviera that I saw bloom was in an old restaurant in downtown Mobile years ago. The window faced west, the pots were overcrowded with plants, and I know they were root bound. And they were blooming away. If you wish to optimize the planting soil and keep feeding most of your plants, for a controlled experiment, leave ONE pot unfed and mostly ignored, and let it get rootbound. It may turn out like my first huge (and ignored) aloe vera plant, and when overcrowded and in intense heat, with only occasional watering, it shot up 4 foot tall spikes of lip-colored blooms that were truly awesome. It made me wonder if the plant was trying to procreate because it anticipated death!!! I'd be interested in what results you have with your MILtongue/snake plants. I think my big pot of them may have died with the record cold spell this winter.

My sympathy! There's quite a good chance they'll come back, but be sure they don't get too wet between now and when they start coming back--and I'm not sure how wet is 'too wet'! Take off the mushy stuff I think--that could bring on rot. I have things I didn't get in or covered that may or may not come back too, and I find it's a gamble, but one that I often win. I just have too many plants and not enough space to store them! I'm not as hopeful about the Mother-in-law tongue's chances as about the aloe I'm afraid--I have three different kinds of aloe outside and unprotected, and they're okay, tho' they're on the 'warm' side of the house. Can't remember what's happened when I left sansevierias out, but that may be why I don't have as many different kinds as I used to! Good luck!

MsGreenFinger GW(8 Ireland) I didn't base my post on scientific research. But I did look up articles about 'air purifying plants based on a NASA research' which are actually the most common house plants. (Palm, spider plant, Sans., english ivy, peace lily, boston fern etc) Maybe it does matter what kind of plant one has, how many, what size and how fast they grow. But I am sure, having a dozen large specimens in your home will make the air quality better, just as they make the life quality better. You also can read this interesting aticle: Can House Plants Solve IAQ Problems? The idea of common plants solving IAQ problems is attractive. Most people like having plants in their homes and offices and in the hotels, stores, and public buildings they visit. However, important questions exist as to whether plants can actually affect indoor air sufficiently to warrant their use as air cleaners. Can House Plants Solve IAQ Problems-2.pdf (PDF document 38Kb) This is from this article: To date, advocates have not reported the results from actual field tests. One field study was begun and failed, according to a strong advocate of the interiorscape approach to IAQ control. Stuart Snyder is the president of Aqua/Trends of Boca Raton, Florida, a firm that sells irrigation systems for interiorscapes. He offered his explanation as part of a 13-page letter to Robert Axelrad, Director of EPA's Indoor Air Division. Responding to what he calls EPA's criticism of the NASA work, Snyder wrote, “In many ways small systems are better able to isolate factors, and more clearly define mechanisms at work.... Larger environments are too subject to conflicting variables. Real life, field studies with their complex dynamics are also valuable, and should be implemented at later stages of research -- they are however, more difficult to accurately stage and evaluate” Snyder continued, “Scaled up studies must be made at some point. Associated Landscape Contractors of America have already attempted a controlled study in an office building. It failed as a study because of these difficulties.” The office-building study was done for over a year under realistic conditions and with as much control as can be achieved in a field study, There was no indication that the presence of plants had any measurable effect. HBI Inc., which conducted the study, reported virtually no effect of plants on the VOC concentrations. John R. Girman (Chief of the Analysis Branch at EPA's Indoor Air Division) has prepared a memo that details some shortcomings of the NASA study's claims for the efficacy of plants. The memo was included in correspondence between Axelrad and Snyder. Girman's memo responds to some of the technical issues presented by Snyder and other advocates of IAQ control with house plants. The memo's title is “Comment on the Use of Plants as a Means to Control Indoor Air Pollution,” (undated.) Girman analyzes the notion that NASA research shows plants are effective at removing indoor air pollutants at realistic concentrations and time frames. He calculates that at the most favorable conditions, it would take 680 plants in a typical house to achieve the same pollutant removal rate Wolverton and his colleagues reported they achieved in the test chamber. However, scale-up considerations are also important. It appears that the average chamber volume used in Wolverton's tests was 0.5 m3. This means the results must be appropriately scaled-up for use in a larger environment to allow for differences in volumetric loading (the number of plants per volume of space). This does not appear to have been done. The volume of a typical house in the U.S. is 340 m3 with a floor area of 139 m2 (1500 ft2). Thus, the recommendation that one plant be used per 100 ft2 implies the use of 15 plants in a typical house. [ALCA recommends 1 plant per 100 ft2. Wolverton recently told us he now recommends 2 or 3 plants/100 ft2, but he says “he is “just throwing a dart."] This would provide for 340 m3/15 plants or 23 m3 per plant, not 0.5 m3 per plant as in the chamber. This means that each plant would have to clean 46 times more volume than it did in the test chamber or, as would actually happen, it will clean the larger volume less effectively. To be more precise, each plant will have a pollutant removal rate which is only 1/46 of the rate it would have in the chamber, i.e., only 0.002 h-1. Thus, plants at the volumetric loading recommended would be expected to contribute relatively little to pollutant removal in any indoor environment with typical ventilation To achieve the same pollutant removal rate as realized in the test chamber, one would need to have the same volumetric loading, i.e., 680 plants in a typical house (340 m3 divided by 0.5 m3 per plant). This does not seem practical and this forms the basis for concern that adequate and realistic scale-up considerations are necessary before the use of plants can be recommended as a means to control IAQ. Similar concerns apply to the use of plants to control IAQ in office environments. It is hardly surprising that the attempt to validate the test chamber results by Associated Landscape Contractors of America did not provide measurable success ellenr22 - NJ - Zone 6b/7a(6b/7a) another option would be to not pollute the earth, the air. I agree with you but people need to vote for the right people in the elections to do that.