Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 13 - Jul 18
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
silver prayer plant Calathea Orbifolia Prayer PlantBotanical Name: Calathea orbifolia Common Names: Round Leaf Calathea Peacock Plant Silver Banded Prayer Plant Orbifolia Prayer Plant The Calathea orbifolia commands attention with its extraordinary large, round leaves featuring stunning silver green banded patterns that create breathtaking natural artwork on an impressive scale. This magnificent South American native showcases broad, paddle shaped leaves with distinctive silver stripes alternating
Botanical Name: Calathea orbifolia
Common Names: Round-Leaf Calathea • Peacock Plant • Silver-Banded Prayer Plant • Orbifolia Prayer Plant
The Calathea orbifolia commands attention with its extraordinary large, round leaves featuring stunning silver-green banded patterns that create breathtaking natural artwork on an impressive scale. This magnificent South American native showcases broad, paddle-shaped leaves with distinctive silver stripes alternating with deep green bands, while performing the enchanting daily ritual of folding upward each evening like hands in prayer, bringing dramatic tropical elegance and air-purifying benefits to any indoor space.
This remarkable statement beauty combines spectacular large-scale drama with the beloved interactive movement of prayer plants, making it perfect for tropical plant enthusiasts, statement plant lovers, or anyone seeking a dramatic focal point that provides daily entertainment through its prayer-like leaf movements. Enjoy year-round silver-banded magnificence with impressive oversized foliage that cleanses your air while performing its captivating nightly ritual - all with complete confidence around your beloved pets and family members.
Complete Care Guide
Light Requirements ▼
- Bright, indirect light showcases the silver banding beautifully
- East or north-facing windows provide ideal growing conditions
- Avoid direct sunlight which can fade the silver patterns
- Filtered light enhances the dramatic leaf patterns
- Consistent lighting helps maintain prayer movement patterns
Watering Instructions ▼
- Keep soil consistently moist but never waterlogged
- Water when top inch of soil feels slightly dry
- Use filtered, distilled, or rainwater when possible
- Large leaves require consistent moisture for best appearance
- Reduce watering frequency slightly in winter months
Humidity & Temperature ▼
- High humidity: 60-80% for optimal large leaf development
- Temperature range: 65-80°F (18-27°C) with consistent warmth
- Place on large humidity trays or near humidifiers
- Group with other tropical plants to increase local humidity
- Avoid cold drafts and air conditioning vents
Potting & Fertilizing ▼
- Use well-draining, peat-based potting mix that retains moisture
- Ensure excellent drainage to prevent root rot
- Feed monthly during growing season with diluted liquid fertilizer
- Repot annually for best growth and leaf size
- Choose wide, stable pots to support large leaf spread
Large Leaf Care & Air Purification ▼
- Gently wipe large leaves with damp cloth to showcase silver bands
- Actively removes formaldehyde and other indoor air pollutants
- Large leaves perform dramatic daily prayer movements
- Propagated by division of rhizomes during repotting
- Remove yellowing leaves to encourage new large growth
Styling Ideas for Your Calathea Orbifolia
Statement Floor Plants
Large leaves create dramatic focal points in any room
Tropical Collections
Perfect centerpiece for humidity-loving plant groupings
Living Room Drama
Silver bands add sophisticated elegance to main spaces
Air-Purifying Corners
Large leaves maximize air-cleaning benefits
Shipping & Potting Information
Your plant ships in its current nursery pot and will need to be repotted into a decorative container of your choice. The beautiful ceramic pot shown in the product images is for styling inspiration only and is not included with your purchase. This allows you to select the perfect decorative pot that matches your home's unique style and décor.
Frequently Asked Questions
How large do the leaves actually get? ▼
Calathea orbifolia leaves can reach 8-12 inches wide and equally tall, making them some of the largest in the prayer plant family. With proper care and adequate space, mature plants can develop truly spectacular oversized leaves that create dramatic impact.
Do the large leaves still perform the prayer movement? ▼
Yes! Despite their impressive size, the leaves still fold upward each evening in the characteristic prayer plant movement. The large scale actually makes this daily ritual even more dramatic and noticeable than smaller prayer plants.
Is this variety more difficult than other Calatheas? ▼
Orbifolia is actually considered one of the more forgiving Calatheas! While it appreciates high humidity like all prayer plants, its larger leaves are somewhat more tolerant of varying conditions, making it a good choice for intermediate tropical plant parents.
Is this plant safe around pets and children? ▼
Absolutely! Calathea orbifolia is completely non-toxic to cats, dogs, and humans, making it a perfect worry-free choice for families who want to enjoy its stunning large silver-banded leaves and dramatic prayer movements safely.
How much space does this plant need? ▼
Plan for a mature spread of 2-3 feet wide and tall. This is definitely a statement floor plant that needs adequate space to showcase its impressive large leaves and dramatic presence. The extra space is worth it for the stunning impact it creates!
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- 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
4.4 ★★★★★
Based on 423 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 5
Clear, cogent, and illuminating
Format: Kindle
Clear, cogent, and illuminating explanation of the difference between two approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalism and the Living Constitution
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2015
★★★★★ 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
★★★★★ 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
★★★★★ 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
★★★★★ 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