Hylotelephium ewersii (Ledeb.) H. Ohba, Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 90:50. 1977 (Syn: (≡) Sedum ewersii Ledeb. (basionym)) as per GRIN 
Sedum ewersii Ledeb., Fl. Altaic. 2: 191 1830. (Syn: Hylotelephium ewersii (Ledeb.) H.Ohba; Sedum azureum Royle [Illegitimate]) as per The Plant List Ver.1.1;
Common name: Pink Sedum, Pink stonecrop


27-09-2010: On the way to Hampta Pass (Manali region). Altitude: 10500 to 11000 ft .;




Sedum…?? Kalatope al230911: Two flowers today that looked like sedum to me…
Location Kalatope, Chamba
Altitude 2100 mts
Habit herb
Habitat garden/cultivated
height 10/12 inches

I hope Sedum ewersii

i vaguely remember that once upon a time kalanchoes were also called sedum…
how does one differentiate the two? officially…

The two genera are very distinct. In that in Kalanchoe the flowers have a long corolla tube completely enclosing the fruit and flowers are 4-merous. In sedum the petals are free and usually 5-merous (4-merous is Rhodiola) but fruits are visible from top.




Sedum…?? Pangi al230911a: This one’s from Pangi..
Location Pangi valley
Altitude 3000 mts
Habit herb
Habitat wild
Height 8/10 inches




ID:  Plz help in ID of the alpine herb:

Pic taken at Khilanmarg, Gulmarg (3500 m).
Guess: Crassulaceae

Please check with Sedum ewersii which has reddish-pink flowers and comes to flower in Late August-Serptember.

sedum ewersii



Amarnath Yatra -Flower Head for ID (NSJ-01 – 20/08/2013) : Attachments (3). 5 posts by 4 authors.

A flower Head for ID.

Location from Panjtarni to Holy cave

Altitude 12000′

Date Aug 13, 2013

Pl bear with poor quality photo.

Nice find … This looks like Sedum ewersii.

Yes it is Sedum ewersii Ledeb. (Crassulaceae).




Sedum sp. for ID?? en-route Shilt – GHNP – PKA45 5 posts by 3 authors. Attachments (4).  

Seen this Sedum sp. en-route Shilt at GHNP at an altitude of approx. 3000m
Could this be Sedum ewersii..???
Family: Crassulaceae
Date/Time: 25-09-2014 / 03:15PM
Habitat: wild,
Plant Habit: Herb

Yes it is S.ewersii.

It is Sedum ewersii now Hylotelephium ewersii




Sedum ewersii?? en-route Shilt – GHNP – PKA46 : 5 posts by 3 authors. Attachments (4).  

This looks like Sedum ewersii?? Pl. validate.
Family: Crassulaceae
Location: En-route Guntarao Camp site, GHNP, Altitude approx 3000m.
Date/Time: 26/09/2014 — 11:30AM

It may be Sedum ewersii.

In lack of leaves difficult to conclude. Any pic of leaves will be conclusive.

Yes it is Sedum ewersii

Yes …, common in middle Altitudes. We had grown it at our house also in Srinagar. Please preserve it for upload during the coming Fortnight.

Only flowers are magnified blacking out the leaves, which are important for this plant’s identity

Bot. name: Sedum ewersii
Family: Crassulaceae
Date/Time: 27-09-2010 / 09:00AM
Location: On the way to Hampta Pass (Manali region). Altitude: 10500 to 11000 ft .
Habitat: Wild

very nice

wild, eh?

some crassula also have similar colored and structured (atleast to quick looking) flowers…

Yes, Very good photographs


Crassulaceae, Combretaceae and Myrtaceae Fortnight: Crassulaceae-Sedum ewersii – en-route Shilt-GHNP -PKA-DEC14:: : 2 posts by 2 authors. Attachments (4)

Seen this Sedum sp. en-route Shilt at GHNP at an altitude of approx. 3000m
Bot. name: Sedum ewersii
Family: Crassulaceae
Date/Time: 25-09-2014 / 03:15PM
Habitat: wild,
Plant Habit: Herb..

Yes … Very good photographs.


Crassulaceae, Combretaceae and Myrtaceae Fortnight: Combretaceae: Sedum ewersii from Kashmir:GSDEC08 : 4 posts by 3 authors. Attachments (1).  

Sedum ewersii photographed from University of Kashmir Botanical Garden, Srinagar

Can it be Hylotelephium ewersii

Yes the two are synonyms.

The Plant List recognises Sedum ewersii.

Yes Sedum ewersii.


Sedum ewersii
Family: Crassulaceae
Location: En-route Guntarao Camp site, GHNP, Altitude approx 3000m.
Date/Time: 26/09/2014 — 11:30AM

Yes … Very good photographs.

typical pink of sedum ewersii



Crassulaceae, Combretaceae and Myrtaceae Fortnight: Sedum spectabile : 5 posts by 3 authors. Attachments (1)
I think Sedum spectabile.
Place: Shimla
May, 2013

Could be S. ewersii also.

Thank you, Sir.

efi page on Hylotelephium ewersii (Syn: Sedum ewersii Ledeb.) 

Thank you, … for introducing me with new name of this plant.




This is to share with you from Shimla.. I hope this is rightly identified as Sedum ewersii .. please suggest if otherwise..

This one I know

we have them in the gardening centers




Fwd: ID Please SK 190715 : 3 posts by 1 author.
Sedum ewersii or Sedum Causticola
Pictures shot at an altitude of 11000 ft after crossing the Khardung La on 22 Aug, 2014, though not so good quality.

efi page on Hylotelephium ewersii (syn: Sedum ewersii Ledeb.) 

Another species I think you mean is Sedum cauticola Praeger  

It must be sedum ewersii



Sedum ewersii ABOCT2016/07 : 6 posts by 3 authors. 2 images.
A friend sent me this yesterday. He found this above Triund on his way to Ilaqa at about 3200m. I think this is Sedum ewersii. Please advise.
Sedum ewersii   
Triund-Ilaqa, Dharamshala, HP 3200m 08-09 October 2016

Yes, this is Sedum ewersii but I’m afraid there have been major taxonomic and nomenclatural changes in Crassulaceae. Many higher mountain
Sedums are now within the genus Rhodiola whilst this is now Hylotelephium ewersii (ledeb.) H.Ohba – except I see this is not an accepted name within ‘The Plant List’, so must check this out. It was the name used by Dickore & Klimes in their checklist of Ladakh flora.
Stewart knew it as S.ewersii– a very common rock crevice plant, chiefly in the temperate zone @ 1000, mostly 1500-4500m.  It grows on the Rohtang Pass and I know it from Ladakh.  
Collet did not find it at Shimla but higher at Matiana and Narkunda.
‘Flowers of Lahaul-Spiti’ record it (as Hylotelephium) as common on rocks & boulders.
I see there is Hylotelephium pakistanicum (G.R.Sarwar) G.R.Sarwar as an accepted name- this does not gives H.ewersii as a synonym but when google images is clicked various photos of the latter species appear along with a line drawing of it! In FOP H.pakistanicum is separated on the basis of being glandular-hairy (and some other minor characteristics). Would need to check this further to see if such a separation is justified at species level?
See: /species/a—l/cl/crassulaceae/hylotelephium/sedum-ewersii

Thanks, …, We can not rely on The Plant List Ver. 1.1 where data is shown as being taken from WCSP (in review) as it is still under review.
This is the case here at The Plant List Ver. 1.1 link (The record derives from WCSP (in review) (data supplied on 2012-03-23) which reports it as a synonym with original publication details: Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 90: 50 1977.)

OK.  Thought it may be of interest to some the information provided to me by Ray Stephenson of the UK SEDUM SOCIETY:
Rhodiola were considered by Linnaeus to be separate from Sedum as the only species then known had single-sex flowers. Only as new species were discovered t have relatively typical Sedum flowers did many taxonomists follow Scopoli (1771) to place them all in Sedum – despite the fact all Rhodiola known at the time were herbaceous and some species had sunken ovaries (partially below the line of petals).
In recent times the Linnaean classification has been more widely accepted due to DNA studies (especially Ohba) showing Rhodiola quite removed from Sedum proper.
Telephium was always a subgenus of Sedum (herbaceous + attenuate or stipitate carpels). Unfortunately as the name Telephium or a genus had been used illegally by Hill (1756), a ne generic name was needed. This led to Hylotelephium– which is much closer to Orostachys, Sinocrassula, Rhodiola, Phedimus and Pseudosedum than to Sedum proper.
Let us see what the decision is following the review….

Thanks, … Earlier it was GRIN, which was supposed to be very good, but it did gave only a few synonyms.
Things changed with the coming of The Plant List in 2012, which I think was further modified in 2014 with Ver. 1.1, to reduce the anomalies. But it is based on fixed datasets taken from different sources like WCSP, ILDIS, GCC etc. However, there are still lot of discrepancies.
Now Catalogue of Life has been released in 2016, which I find is generally better than the The Plant List Ver. 1.1.
Along with the resources as above, we can also check in different efloras & local floras etc. & take a final decision.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *