Echeveria secunda

Plate 1 figs. a–h · 8 separate observations

Echeveria secunda, photographed by Erick Vélez Sánchez — fig. c Erick Vélez Sánchez, CC BY 4.0 / obs. 85772208

Echeveria secunda, photographed by Jalil R. — fig. d Jalil R., CC BY-SA 4.0 / obs. 77098821

Echeveria secunda, photographed by Oscar Alejandro Morales Juárez — fig. e Oscar Alejandro Morales Juárez, CC BY-SA 4.0 / obs. 96670940

Echeveria secunda, photographed by José Belem Hernández Díaz — fig. h José Belem Hernández Díaz, CC BY 4.0 / obs. 17994810

Every figure is a research-grade observation under CC0, CC BY or CC BY-SA, rehosted with the photographer’s name, the licence and the observation it came from. Photographs under a NonCommercial licence are excluded from this site and are never stored, which costs us a great many pictures and is not negotiable.

Native range 4 botanical countries

Native distribution of Echeveria secunda, after Kew’s World Checklist of Vascular Plants. Introduced, extinct and doubtful records are excluded, so this is where the plant is from, not everywhere it now grows.

Region	TDWG code	Continent
Mexico Central	MXC	NORTHERN AMERICA
Mexico Gulf	MXG
Mexico Northeast	MXE
Mexico Southwest	MXS

Region boundaries approximated from Natural Earth (public domain) and mapped to TDWG World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD) level-3 botanical countries (Brummitt 2001). Indicative, not the official WGSRPD geometry.

Flowering 77 in flower of 127 examined

77%

71%

96%

64%

17%

Proportion of examined Echeveria secunda in flower, by month
Month	In flower	Examined	Share	95% interval
Jan	0	3	too few examined
Feb	0	1	too few examined
Mar	0	11	0%	0% to 26%
Apr	20	26	77%	58% to 89%
May	17	24	71%	51% to 85%
Jun	22	23	96%	79% to 99%
Jul	9	14	64%	39% to 84%
Aug	7	11	64%	35% to 85%
Sep	1	2	too few examined
Oct	1	6	17%	3% to 56%
Nov	0	1	too few examined
Dec	0	5	0%	0% to 43%

Peak flowering in Jun. Each bar is the share of Echeveria secunda observations in which someone actually recorded the reproductive state and found the plant in flower, not the raw number of flowering records. That distinction matters: people observe plants far more in spring than in winter, so a bare count of flowering records partly measures when people go outside. Dividing by the number examined removes that. 77 of 127 examined observations were in flower, every one of them research grade. The whisker on each bar is a 95% Wilson interval. 4 months have fewer than 5 examined observations, so no proportion is drawn for them. This is still a global aggregate and not a forecast for your garden: the same species flowers on different dates in different hemispheres. Where a species has fewer than 30 flowering records we do not draw this chart at all. Computed from 10.15468/dl.cgje2x.

Also published as 16 synonyms

A synonym is not an error. It is a record of botanists disagreeing, in print, about where this plant belongs. Each of these was somebody’s considered answer.

Cotyledon glauca Baker
Cotyledon pumila (Van Houtte) Baker
Cotyledon secunda (Booth ex Lindl.) Baker
Echeveria byrnesii Rose
Echeveria glauca (Baker) É.Morren
Echeveria glauca var. pumila (Van Houtte) Poelln.
Echeveria globosa hort. ex É.Morren
Echeveria gracillima Muehlenpf. ex Otto
Echeveria pumila Van Houtte
Echeveria pumila var. glauca (Baker) E.Walther
Echeveria rosacea Lind. & André
Echeveria secunda f. byrnesii (Rose) Kimnach
Echeveria secunda var. byrnesii (Rose) Poelln.
Echeveria secunda var. glauca (Baker) Otto
Echeveria secunda var. pumila (Van Houtte) Otto
Echeveria spilota Kunze ex Walp.

Sourcesevery claim on this page

World Flora Online Plant List. accepted name, authority, classification. CC0. Retrieved 2026-07-12.
iNaturalist. photographs and flowering annotations, CC0 / CC BY / CC BY-SA only. per photograph. Retrieved 2026-06-27.
Kew, World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP v16). native distribution by TDWG level-3 botanical country, and life form. CC BY 3.0. Retrieved 2026-06-04.

We publish what we can source and we say so when we cannot. This page has no care advice and no toxicity claim, because we do not yet have those from a source we can cite.