SKU: 12540702619
philodendron narrow ring of fire

philodendron narrow ring of fire Ring of Fire Plant

$21.82 $24.25
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on gamcb.com >

Pay in installments of $6.06 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 21 - Jul 26

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

philodendron narrow ring of fire Ring of Fire PlantKey Highlights Ring of Fire The Philodendron ring of fire plant is known for its long, serrated leaves with dramatic, jagged edges, making it one of the most unique philodendron varieties. The Philodendron Ring of Fire is a climbing variety that naturally grows upward, using aerial roots to attach itself to trees or moss poles for support. The foliage displays an ever changing mix of green, yellow, orange, cream, and white, with each new leaf

Key Highlights – Ring of Fire

  1. The Philodendron ring of fire plant is known for its long, serrated leaves with dramatic, jagged edges, making it one of the most unique philodendron varieties.
  2. The Philodendron ‘Ring of Fire’ is a climbing variety that naturally grows upward, using aerial roots to attach itself to trees or moss poles for support.
  3. The foliage displays an ever-changing mix of green, yellow, orange, cream, and white, with each new leaf developing unpredictable variegation over time.
  4. The Philodendron ‘Ring of Fire’ is expensive due to its slow growth rate, rarity, and highly sought-after variegation.
  5. Like many philodendrons, it helps improve indoor air quality by filtering toxins and increasing oxygen levels in the home.

The Ring of Fire Plant, known as Philodendron ‘Ring of Fire’, is a highly sought-after tropical plant known for its striking foliage and vibrant color variations. This hybrid variety with long, serrated leaves, display an incredible mix of green, orange, yellow, and cream hues. Its rarity and climbing nature make it a prized addition for houseplant collectors and enthusiasts who appreciate unique and ornamental foliage plants. It is also valued for its ability to purify the air in homes and offices.

No two leaves are exactly alike, with each new leaf emerging in different shades and patterns, adding to its appeal. This makes it an exciting plant to grow, as its appearance changes over time. 

It grows in a vining or climbing manner, making it an excellent candidate for moss poles or trellises that support its upward growth.

When mature, the Philodendron ‘Ring of Fire’ can grow up to 8 feet tall and with spreads up to 6 feet wide.

Although it is slow-growing, patience is rewarded with spectacular foliage that develops more defined variegation as the plant matures.

One of its most distinguishing features is its elongated, deeply serrated large leaves.

Unlike many philodendrons with smooth edges, Ring of Fire has dramatic, jagged margins that enhance its tropical and exotic look.

The variegation ranges from bright yellow and orange to deep green and creamy white, creating a fiery effect that justifies its name. 

The flowers appear on a thin stalk and look like tiny spikes with pale yellow or white petals. Since flowering is rare, it does not impact the plant’s appeal as a decorative houseplant. 

Another fascinating aspect of the Philodendron ‘Ring of Fire’ is its ability to display different color phases throughout its life. Some leaves may emerge predominantly green with subtle splashes of yellow, while others can have intense orange or creamy white streaks. This ever-changing variegation adds an element of surprise and uniqueness, making it a favorite among collectors who enjoy dynamic, evolving plants. 

When and How to Water Your Ring of Fire Plant 

Philodendron ‘Ring of Fire’ is a relatively drought-tolerant plant, but it should not be allowed to dry out completely. This plant can withstand brief periods of dryness, thanks to its semi-succulent roots, but prolonged drought will lead to slowed growth and leaf curling. While it doesn’t demand frequent watering like some moisture-loving plants, it is essential to balance hydration to prevent stress. 

In the spring and summer, during the active growing season, water your Philodendron 'Ring of Fire' when the top 2 inches of soil feels dry. Depending on the environment, this typically means watering once every 5 to 7 days. Ensure that you water thoroughly until excess drains from the pot’s bottom, allowing the roots to receive ample hydration.  

In fall and winter, during the dormant season, the ring of fire plant’s water needs decrease as growth slows. Water only when the top 3-4 inches of soil is dry, which may extend the frequency to once every 10 to 14 days. Overwatering during this time can lead to root rot, so always check soil moisture before watering. If the indoor air is particularly dry due to heating systems, occasional misting can help maintain humidity without overwatering. 

Light Requirements – Where to Place Your Philodendron Ring of Fire 

When grown indoors as a houseplant, your Philodendron ‘Ring of Fire’ thrives in bright, indirect light for at least 6 to 8 hours daily.

A spot near a north or east-facing window is ideal, where the plant receives filtered sunlight without harsh direct exposure.

South and west-facing windows should have sheer curtains to diffuse strong rays, as too direct sun can scorch the delicate variegated foliage.

If natural light is limited, supplement with a full-spectrum grow light for 10-12 hours daily to maintain healthy growth.

For outdoor cultivation, this Philodendron plant thrives in partial shade to dappled sunlight, making it perfect for placement under a tree canopy or a covered patio.

It benefits from morning sun exposure for at least 2-4 hours and shade during the hottest parts of the day. Avoid prolonged exposure to intense afternoon sun, as it can cause leaf burns, especially on the lighter variegated sections. 

Optimal Soil & Fertilizer Needs 

Philodendron ‘Ring of Fire’ thrives in well-draining, nutrient-rich soil. Planting them in ordinary soil will result in compacted roots, stunted growth, and most likely root rot. Instead, make or buy a well-draining potting mix, or ideally use our specialized potting mix, opens in a new tab that contains 5 natural substrates and mycorrhizae to promote the development of a strong root system that helps your Philodendron plant to thrive. 

During the growing season in the spring, fertilize the plant once a year using a balanced NPK fertilizer. A formulation with lower parts of nitrogen and potassium such as 5-10-5, will encourage strong foliage growth and vibrant variegation. Organic alternatives like worm castings or compost can also provide slow-release nutrients. 

In fall and winter, reduce feeding as the plant’s growth naturally slows. Over-fertilizing during dormancy can lead to salt buildup and leaf discoloration. 

Hardiness Zones & More 

For growing indoors as a houseplant, ring of fire Philodendron requires temperatures between 65-80°F and humidity levels above 60% for optimal growth. Placing a humidifier nearby or using a pebble tray can help maintain consistent moisture in the air. Avoid placing the plant near heating vents or air conditioners, as sudden temperature fluctuations can cause stress. 

In the United States, this is mostly an indoor plant, but if you live in southern Florida or

Hawaii then you can cultivate it outdoor in USDA zones 9-11.

It thrives in high humidity environments but should be sheltered from direct afternoon sun to prevent leaf scorch.

If you grow outdoors in cooler zones, bring the plant indoors once temperature drops below 55°F to prevent cold damage.

Some variegation patterns may intensify or change slightly in response to different light conditions. 

Wildlife – Ring of Fire Flowers Attracts the Following Friendly Pollinators  

The Philodendron 'Ring of Fire' attracts pollinators, such as bees, butterflies, and hummingbirds with its creamy white to pale yellow flowers. The plant's flower structure and fragrance make it attractive to a variety of pollinators.

Butterflies
Bees
Hummingbirds
Lady Bugs
Multi Pollinators
Other Birds

According to ASPCA, the Philodendrons are mildly toxic to cats, dogs, and birds due to the presence of calcium oxalate crystals. Ingesting any part of the plant can cause oral irritation, drooling, vomiting, and difficulty swallowing, so keep it out of reach of pets. 

How to Propagate Your Ring of Fire Philodendron  

Philodendron ‘Ring of Fire’ is best propagated by stem cuttings. Select a healthy stem with at least two to three nodes and cut just below a node using sterilized shears. Remove any lower leaves and place the cutting in water or a well-draining potting mix. If using water propagation, change the water every few days until roots develop, then transfer the cutting to soil. Keep humidity high and provide indirect light to encourage healthy root formation.

The Bottom Line 

Overall, the Philodendron ‘Ring of Fire’ is a remarkable plant that combines striking coloration, serrated leaves, and a slow but rewarding growth habit. It’s rare and unpredictable variegation makes it highly desirable, while its relatively low-maintenance care needs make it accessible to both beginners and experienced plant lovers. It thrives in bright, indirect light, well-draining soil, and high humidity, making it a fantastic choice for both indoor and outdoor plant enthusiasts in warm climates.  Whether used as a statement piece in a houseplant collection or allowed to climb in a tropical indoor garden, this philodendron continues to captivate plant enthusiasts worldwide. 

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: 12540702619

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell philodendron narrow ring of fire

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.5 ★★★★★
Based on 14 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
C
Verified Purchase
Chris Morton
San Leandro, US
★★★★★ 5
Excellent!!!
Format: Kindle
A wonderfully refreshing argument for "the living constitution". Most surprisingly is that much of the argument is based in the philosophy of Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2017
M
Verified Purchase
Matt Cockerill
Massapequa, US
★★★★★ 5
Five Stars
Format: Hardcover
Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014
S
Verified Purchase
Stephen J. Jaros
Grantham, US
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18): 1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue. 2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems. 3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders. Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on. The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them. Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said: "The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801). The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean. Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445). Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution". Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same. Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought. But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
R
Ross L. Meyer
New York, US
★★★★★ 5
Originalist v Living Document , 5 - 4
Format: Hardcover
I found the author's arguments to be logical and compelling. Those who embrace the so-called originalist view of the Constitution, for example Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, claim that they know - with great certainty - the absolute intent of the Constitution's authors. Further they claim that the Constitution provides specifics and principles which of course it does. It is simple to understand the specifics, but what about the principles? Principles, it seems to me, can and do have differing interpretations. One of the definitions of the word principle found in Merriam-Webster states, "a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions." As we all know, rules and beliefs frequently mean different things to different people. If it were not so, Supreme Court decisions would inevitably be decided 9 - 0. Many are familiar with the Supreme Court's case District of Columbia v. Heller in which Justice Scalia opined that the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons. While his opinion certainly seems reasonable to me, I cannot find that principle in the Constitution. Rather it seems to be a logical conclusion based on modern society, mores, and laws - perhaps, as Professor Strauss argues, Common Law. Whether one accepts the originalist view of the Constitution or, as I, believes a living interpretation of the great document is preferable, the one thing we can all agree on is that our nation is one of laws. To that end, it is incumbent on all citizens to accept and abide by the pronouncements of our judges, agree with them or not.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 18, 2014
B
Verified Purchase
Brenda B.
Birmingham, US
★★★★★ 5
My Grandchildren LOVED this!
Format: Hardcover
I read this out loud to my two grandchildren ages 4 and 6 at bedtime. They're so excited to be reading a chapter book and they LOVED it! The book's quirky sense of humor is great and it was fun to hear the kids giggle. We loved how the sloth appears in each story. They couldn't wait for the next night to read. Mr Angleberger- please write more!!!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2017

recommand products

Anthurium crystallinum 'Silver'
24.05
Anthurium 'Forgetii' (wk10-D) *Dark Form*
25.87
Plateau Herbicide with Imazapic for Native Grass Restoration 1Gal
29.04
Anthurium forgetii white stripes
23.81
Anthurium 'Tim Anderson Black' x Anthurium 'Griege' / red crystallinum – The Victorian Atlanta
20.48