SKU: 646679162
are spider lilies real

are spider lilies real Red Spider Lily (Lycoris radiata) Southern Heirloom Triploid

Sale price$22.02 Regular price$24.47
Save 10%

Pay in installments of $6.12 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 24 - Jul 29

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

are spider lilies real Red Spider Lily (Lycoris radiata) Southern Heirloom TriploidRed Spider Lily (Lycoris radiata): A Gardener's Guide to the Enchanting Resurrection Flower Red spider lilies are beloved perennials that thrive in zones 7 10, bringing a burst of vibrant beauty to gardens when fall rains arrive. A Lily of Many Names: The Red Spider Lily's Regional Nickname: One of our favorite things about the red spider is its many names as you travel across the country. This also makes for interesting conversations with our

Red Spider Lily (Lycoris radiata): A Gardener's Guide to the Enchanting Resurrection Flower

Red spider lilies are beloved perennials that thrive in zones 7-10, bringing a burst of vibrant beauty to gardens when fall rains arrive.

A Lily of Many Names: The Red Spider Lily's Regional Nickname:

One of our favorite things about the red spider is its many names as you travel across the country. This also makes for interesting conversations with our customers to make sure that we are talking about the same flowering bulb. The names don't change the striking beauty of this fall-blooming flower. Here in East Texas, we call it the "red spider lily". It is red, and the stamens look like spider legs. Along the coast, it is often referred to as a "hurricane lily" because it often blooms after the first fall hurricane. Many people call this a "naked lady" because it blooms on a naked stalk. Others simply call it a "surprise" lily because it shows up out of nowhere and surprises you one day with a flower. No matter what it is called, its beauty will make you glad that you have it in your garden.

The Red Spider Lily's Unique Bloom Cycle: A Timeline

Understanding the Red Spider Lily's bloom cycle is key to successful cultivation. Most people still expect to see something growing during the summer months. You won't see anything. These lilies are dormant in the summer. The flowers suddenly appear with the first later summer or early fall rains. One day there is nothing growing and then suddenly you have a surprise, a fully blooming flower! That is why they are called "Surprise lilies". Yellow spider lilies act very similarly to yellow spider lilies, schoolhouse lilies, and naked ladies. Simply put, they bloom in the fall and then have foliage for the winter. I have spider lilies planted almost 2 years ago that have not yet produced blooms but have produced increasing foliage each year.

1. Planting (Anytime): Avoid hard freezes, but otherwise you can plant the bulbs anytime that you are thinking about them.
2. Dormancy (Summer): Bulbs rest underground, conserving energy.
3. Surprise Blooms (Late Summer/Early Fall): Flowers emerge seemingly overnight.
4. Foliage Growth (Fall/Winter): Leaves appear, gathering nutrients for the following year.

Nurturing the Foliage: The Key to Red Spider Lily Success

The foliage is vital for the bulb's health and reproduction. Don't be discouraged if you don't see blooms the first year – healthy foliage is a positive sign of bulb establishment. The foliage tells you the bulb is growing and multiplying. We know that we all want to see the beautiful unusual blooms in the fall, but the foliage is very important. The foliage is what allows the bulb to grow and multiply. Many people get very concerned if they don't see the spider lily bloom the first year that they plant it and believe that maybe the bulb isn't any good. The foliage is what you watch for if you don't see your spider lily bloom, or even if you do.

Below you will see a picture of the foliage of the red spider lily - it looks like grass. We took the picture on November 1st. The foliage has been popping out of the ground a little over the previous couple of weeks, but now you can really see the stand. All of those different tufts of foliage are bulbs, and someday you will see a beautiful stand of red spider lilies here. In this area because of the super dry summer, not one red spider lily bloomed. However, you can see that the bulbs are growing. The foliage is up and ready to take in nutrients over the next several months while helping the bulbs grow, mature, and multiply. I know you will have to take our word for it, but there wasn't even 1/2 that much foliage there last year which shows you how quickly the bulbs multiply. The foliage will continue to grow. Even if it gets hit by a winter cold snap, it will have taken in nutrients for months! Always allow the foliage to die down naturally and don't cut it off. If you cut it, you are killing the bulb. Once the foliage is completely dead which is usually around the beginning of May, this area can be mowed. Remember, it takes a lot of energy for the bulb to push that bloom up out of the ground and open wide. The more time the bulbs can take in nutrients, the more energy they will have for that fall bloom.

Sunlight Requirements: Ensuring a Spectacular Bloom

The single most important thing about landscaping with spider lilies is the sun. They need at least 6+ hours a day of WINTER sun. That means about 6-8 hours of sunlight during the winter months. If you look at the photo above, you will see that they are in the shade of the trees. You can be sure that most, if not all, of those trees, will lose their leaves in the winter when the greenery needs sunlight. The spider lily puts on its foliage during the winter (November - May) and that is when it takes in the nutrients it needs to produce those golden flowers the following September. The winter foliage soaks up sun energy during winter as it prepares for summer dormancy. The foliage normally completely dies down by around May.

Planting and Care Tips for Red Spider Lilies

Don't plant the bulb too deep. You will plant the bulbs 2-3 times deep the height of the bulb (so if your bulb is 2" tall, then you will plant it 4-5 inches deep). You can plant 2-3 per hole to make the blooms look more natural. Spider lilies really do well in any type of soil. They thrive in soil that has plenty of organic material mixed in, but they do not require fertilizer. Newly planted bulbs would actually be harmed by exposure to fertilizer, so if you are going to apply nutrients, limit the application to established plants when the plants are producing their green leafy foliage during the winter. After planting the bulbs, water the soil thoroughly. Damp soil is ok, as long as the bulbs are in a spot where they will receive plenty of winter sun and the foliage is allowed to die down naturally in the spring. Standing water is not good. Once the summer season starts the spider lily will do best in soil that dries out a bit, as this facilitates its entry into the dormant stage when its leaves die back. This period is followed by its blooming season when it will reward daily watering with long-lasting blooms. Too much moisture in the soil will lead to the bulbs rotting.

Planting Depth: Plant bulbs 2-3 times their height deep.

Soil Type: While adaptable, they thrive in soil rich in organic matter.

Watering: Water thoroughly after planting and during dry periods. The bulbs are dormant during the summer so you don't need to water them.

Fertilizer: Avoid fertilizing newly planted bulbs; established plants benefit from fertilizer during active foliage growth.

The performance of red spider lilies primarily hinges on two factors:

1. Winter Sunlight: To produce lush blooms, the bulbs need to absorb sufficient nutrients from the winter sun. Energy stored over months is used to create these breathtaking blossoms. For this, they require at least six hours of winter sun for several months to ensure they have the energy needed.

2. Fall Rains: The magic trigger for these blooms is the arrival of fall rains. Without adequate rainfall in September, the bulbs won't bloom, as the rains are the signal they've been waiting for.

Dividing and Multiplying Your Red Spider Lily Garden

Early spring is ideal for dividing, but it can be done whenever convenient. Remember, transplanting might cause the lilies to skip a blooming cycle.

Companion Plants for Red Spider Lilies: A Symphony of Color

Enhance your garden's beauty by pairing Red Spider Lilies with other perennials, annuals, or bulbs for continuous blooms:

Perennials: Salvias, Lantanas, Plumbago, Phlox
Annuals: Alyssum, Snapdragons, Pansies, Cyclamen
Bulbs: Narcissus, Iris, Snowflakes, Rain Lilies, Crinums, Hymenocallis

FAQ's

Do animals bother the red spider lilies?

Pollinators adore yellow spider lilies...hummingbirds, bees, and butterfilies.

While deer will eat anything (including plastic flowers if hungry enough), spider lilies are more resistant to their urges than many other ornamental garden products. They definitely leave the foliage alone during the winter, but can be attracted to the bright flowers. So the answer to this question, is that they are mostly resistant, depending on how hungry the deer are. Remember, humans ate tulips during times of hunger/famine, yet tulips definitely aren’t on our menu either.

We understand that online sources sometimes raise concerns about toxicity, so we want to offer some clarification. Much of the alarm you may see online stems from generalized or exaggerated toxicity listings. In reality, cases of actual poisoning are extremely rare, and the plants are not considered a serious risk. While red spider lily bulbs, like many ornamental bulbs, do contain alkaloids that could cause mild irritation if ingested in large quantities, they are not considered dangerous to humans or animals under normal garden conditions. The key is that even for mild irritation they would need to be fully consumed in large quantities. Even if animals chew on the bulbs a little bit, they aren't interested in them (even deer who have been known to eat plastic flowers leave them alone). In fact, they’ve been grown safely in Southern gardens for generations—including in areas with pets and children. You can feel confident they won’t pose a hazard just by being in your garden.

When should I plant red spider lilies? How far in advance should lily bulbs be planted before the first frost in the fall?

For fall planting, aim to have fall lily bulbs in the ground at least four weeks before the first frost. This gives them time to get settled and adjusted before the freeze. You can plant red spider lilies anytime, but avoid a hard freeze.

How do you ship red spider lilies?


During the spring, we ship these vibrant bulbs "in the green," which means they are plump, healthy, and eager to be planted. Expect the foliage to yellow and die back naturally—this is a normal process where the leaves nourish the bulbs for future blooms. Once the foliage is dead, you can cut it off. The rest of the year we ship dormant bulbs. Plant them, water them, and then just wait. Remember - you won't see anything during the summer as the bulbs are dormant. You may not see blooms the first fall depending on when you planted the bulbs. Many perennial bulbs need 6-12 months in the ground before they bloom.

Your Red Spider Lily Journey Starts Today!

Order your Red Spider Lily bulbs now and witness the magic of these captivating flowers in your own garden. With their unique charm and resilience, they are guaranteed to become a treasured part of your landscape.

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: 646679162

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell are spider lilies real

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.3 ★★★★★
Based on 29 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
M
Verified Purchase
Matt Cockerill
Port Orchard, 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
Boise, 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
Lake Worth, 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.
Natrona Heights, 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
J
Verified Purchase
Jewels
Fort Morgan, US
★★★★★ 5
Got my 8 year old to read!
Format: Hardcover
My eight year old hated reading and refused to pick up any book, until this arrived in the mail. He as usual refused at first to read it but I made him read a couple of pages, which he did and put it down but the next day he asked to read it and read the entire book in 30 mins. He said he loved it and it was really funny. Already have the 2nd book on its way.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 15, 2017

recommand products