Nice!!

I have the exact same one but with a little bit longer nodes due to less sunshine than normal. I'll try to upload a picture tomorrow!
Grantgarden2

Hi Yale! I think I know what you're talking about. Your pic looks like C. cordifolia, like this (often mistakenly labeled as C. repens on info source sites):

Backs of leaves (cordifolia on top, light green on back, light green stems,) repens on bottom, (purple on back, reddish stems):

A pic from almost ground level, looking sideways across both plants. Cordifolia stays much lower to the ground, repens sticks up in a "puff" about 6-8" high.

Are these the 2 plants you have? I had to use descriptive keys (with much help from others to decipher) to figure this one out. Pics were not helpful since so many are mislabeled, on sites line Mobot, Va Tech, and a few other very reliable places. I don't think these are plants many people pay much attention to at all, but I LOVE them for filler/spillers in pots.

More pics of both here:

http://allthingsplants.com/plants/view/204392/Callisia-cordifolia/

http://allthingsplants.com/plants/view/87910/Turtle-Vine-Callisia-repens/

Not really sure about C. cordifolia, but from internet searches, I think it has white petals. The Smithsonian USNM site provides photos of C. repens which fit my photo of the plant (leaves) and includes the flowers (which match your C. cordifolia pics). Hopefully, the url will take you to the place where C. repens photos can be found.

http://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/botany/?ti=5

The plant you call C. repens has no scientific name (I think), since no one has seen its flowers. It is widely grown and only known by its common name(s), Bolivian Jew (may have a number of such names). Just one person's opinion. Thanks, Tiffany, for all your efforts with these interesting plants.Yale

I totally share your frustration, that's where things ended up from my last activity in trying to label these 2 plants. I had a discussion here, on All Things Plants, and on Dave's. Also exchanged emails with several professors at universities. I appreciate your contributions! So few people seem to observe these tiny plants to such a degree.

I have seen unbelievably small structures in the leaf axils of what I'm calling C. repens before, but attempts at taking pics weren't successful. One would need a microscope to examine them. It doesn't make sense to me that a plant that's so prevalent and has been around for so long doesn't have a name, but anything's possible.

Finally, this fall, I have significant, thick patches of both plants in the ground, adjacent to each other. I'm going to post new pics soon to the NTP discussion to show much more clearly how different they are, and hopefully some more, even more detailed pics of blooms, to solicit any possible confirmation of the ID's, or new opinions/interpretations, comparing pics to written keys.

Here's the discussion from NTP:

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/discussions/1575358/will-the-real-callisia-repens-please-stand-up?n=33

I completely gave up trying to compare my pics to those on other sites 2 yrs ago because there's so many pics of both plants labeled C. repens.

This is genus is at the top of my list that I wish geneticists would research, even if means a new name for all. I don't know enough plant anatomy words to use the written keys well, but have managed to collect about 6 diff Callisias so far.

The Smithsonian pics are interesting. They all do seem to be of a single species, though not sure about the "furry" flower pics. One of the pics shows so clearly how one can see rows of cell structure on the leaves of what I'm led to believe is C. cordifolia. No preview to see if it shows up from this paste or not:

http://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/botany/search.php?action=10&height=426&width=640&irn=2011400

So cool that I see your note about that today! I was going to say the same thing. I haven't been outside since Sunday and noticed today, after 2 days of rain, that what I'm calling C. cordifolia has started making peduncles & should have blooms soon. This will be my 3rd or 4th year observing the blooms, but first chance to observe ground plants doing it - always/only in pots before.

C. elegans (or is it C. gentlei var. elegans?) is also developing upright stems which will have flowers soon; these will have white flowers with well developed petals. Are other Callisia starting the flowering process now? Yale

When I read your last, I wasn't seeing this. Buds have developed in the past few days.

Peduncles earnestly forming on this too:

Most of the light green areas here are the other Callisia, which is definitely not forming any kind of buds or peduncles (which I've never seen it do in 20 yrs, so is not expected, but if it will, it should in this setting.)

Commelinaceae bed:

Remembered another discussion after giving up in NTP here, pasting relevant info. Unless this key is wrong, the obviously blooming Callisia is cordifolia, the other is repens.
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=1...
C. repens: Inflorescences sessile in distal leaf axils; flowers sessile
or subsessile; petals inconspicuous; stamens 0--6; ovary and capsule
2-locular

C. cordifolia: Inflorescences pedunculate; flowers distinctly
pedicellate; petals conspicuous; stamens 6; ovary and capsule 3-locular

I seem to be missing something obvious, but the plant pictured in the first message of this thread is in bloom today and the bloom is as in your photo 5 (of Sept. 25). Since it has no obvious petals, it cannot be C. cordifolia, but fits nicely with the 'petals inconspicuous' character for C. repens. Just an opinion, but don't believe C. cordifolia is available in the succulent hobby trade. I would like to avoid your photo 2 (Sept. 25), but I like to think it is C. 'Bolivian Jew' (maybe C. repens, but without flowers it is unlikely to get a scientific name). Hoping, Tiffany, that you can help me out. Yale

I have the same plan, and I am not sure about her name. 🥺

Here are the very small flowers, don't have pétalos.

That is C. cordifolia. Not for sale anywhere that I've seen, but a lawn weed.