I've only been working on my current collection for 2 years now 'cause I keep having to leave behind my collections 'cause I used to move alot, but this is what I've got so far. x2 Sansevieria trifasciata (one regular, one laurentii) Spathiphyllum wallisii Chlorophytum comosum variegatum Cereus peruvianus Hoya carnosa Podocarpus macrophyllus Dracaena marginata x2 Codiaeum variegatum pictum (one regular, one Golden Star) Ficus diversifolia x2 Howiea (some say Howea) belmoreana Hypoestes sanguinolenta (had 3 colors, red, white and pink but for some reason the red didn't make it) Dieffenbachia picta Exotica x2 Zygocactus truncatus (one with white flowers, the other with salmon) African violet (grew from a cutting) Schefflera actinophylla Citrus paradisi (grapfruit tree from seed ^_^) Echinocereus pectinatus Lobivia famatimensis Lemaireocereus marginatus An uknown cactus that looks kind of like a Lobivia but yet not...but I call it my snowman cactus 'cause they way it's shaped it looks like a snowman without a head. Philodendron scandens Sedum morganianum Saxifraga sarmentosa Beaucarnea recurvata Aglaonema Silver Queen Tillandsia cyanea Kalanchoe tomentosa A succulent whose leaves are bluish green and fuzzy and slightly pointed at the ends. Thought it may have been an Echeveria setosa...but those leaves are waxy...not fuzzy. Sedum pachyphyllum Aphelandra squarrosa louisae Sempervivum arachnoideum Coleus (just a little seedling) Araucaria heterophylla x2 Hedera helix (one Glacier, one sagittaefolia) Coffea arabica Gasteria liliputana (one of my personal favs) Lavandula heterophylla Radermachera sinica Dracaena deremensis x2 Pteris (one ensiformis victoriae, one cretica albolineata) Zamioculcus zamiifolia (the infamous ZZ plant, another one of my favs) Crassula perforata (probably not a good reason to buy a plant but I bought it merely for it's common name...string of buttons!) That's it, that's all. 14 of the plants on that list were added just this month! >_I have a few seeds I'm waiting on too though. Fuschia, Cactus, Salpiglossis, Strelitzia, Passiflora, Musa, Dracaena (forget exactly what it is), Lithops and a Succulent.

maranta prateada - I had to google it. just gorgeous! is it easy to grow? I think I like marantas...it's an aroid, right? saw tubers. aroids are super showy. I have African mask polly that I adore, but it does not qualify for this thread ... with dormansy and all the mites... I have many fave plants, but they don't grow easy usually. and what grows easy and dependable - still does not grow year round for me (it would if I were to live in florida for example..) with that said, the easiest dependable plants for me in z7b are ficuses of all sorts, sansevieria and 'golden pothos'. oh, and jades. all of them grow slowly and don't grow much in winter. BUT! they are the only plants that survived over the course of 20 years and grew quite BIG. that's smth to think about! what grows fast - needs to be constantly replanted and divided. lots of work! when you are keeping plants for decades, you are really not into monsteras... or scheffleras...unless you have a huge house, that is. I know bedtime is in the apt and so am i.

Jeff, I appreciate your bluntness. Lemons and limes are one thing-they are acid to start with but sweet citrus (as I've read EVERYWHERE) need sun to sweeten the fruit. I'll probably have a lemon and lime tree, but what I really want are oranges and mandarins. I spoke with a lady at a commercial greenhouse in Mansfield (can't recall the name) who said that with no extra light, their lemons and limes did well but the oranges were bland and sour most years. Could it be lack of sun? I also know that many others on this forum use extra light for tomatoes and peppers, which have similar light requirements to citrus from what I know. Maybe it's not, and I'm willing to accept that if someone speaks up that has grown good tasing oranges or mandarins in an Ohio greenhouse with no extra light then I can. Till then I'm not convinced. Also, I guess I'm going off my own experience-the ONLY WAY I've gotten any citrus to fruit indoors was by summering them outside and putting them under a 1000 watt HID light in winter-giving them about 2000-3000 foot-candles of light, which, yeah, is less than direct sun but more than cloudy daylight, and much more than cloudy daylight under greenhouse glazing and framing.

Hi Rosecandy, yes, I've bred and released roses. No, I haven't patented any. The fees for the paperwork are there on the web site. As you can see from them, it still costs a LOT of money for patent protection. MUCH more than I (or likely you) could expect to recoup from any one variety. A major player such as Week's, Conard Pyle, etc., already has the people skilled in filing the paper work and describing the plants. For them, the costs are similar but they have the people and procedures in place. They also have the pipeline for production and distribution in place so they are much more likely to move the quantity of plants required to make back those costs and produce a profit. What good would it do for either of us to spend $1000 to "protect" a plant when we're likely to sell a few dozen, perhaps even a hundred under great results, because we don't have the advertising, production and distribution channels? Far better to produce something you think worthy and interest a commercial concern in producing it. Yes, it's going to take several years for trial and production and you are best off not providing anyone information about it other than those producing it. Say you produce the white and purple spotted rose and it proves itself worthy of introduction. Say that takes the minimum three years (very fast for something really commercial, but OK for arguement). Perhaps you posted a photo of it here on GW in your enthusiasm and even might have provided the parentage. If that post occurred more than one year from the date you apply for patent protection and it is searchable by the patent office, you are out of luck. Those who are already producing such potentially commercial, potentially worthy of patent roses do not divulge their creations publicly until they are tested and any protection is applied for. Jim Sproul, "daddy" of the Eyeconic Hulthemias, Thrive! and quite a few other very nice roses, only shares photos of and information about progress in his breeding. Anything he feels might be "commercial" is never shared until it has either been found unsuitable or protected and ready for introduction. It is completely safe to make statements such as a particular rose or a particular cross is producing good results, but if that statement contains any information which specifically identifies a specific seedling, you have "publicly introduced" that rose. Yes, that means if a rose is patented, it most likely was raised quite a few years prior to the patent date. You see how much it costs to patent the plant. It can take several years to build enough quantities of a single plant to be able to supply demand. All of that costs quite a bit of money if you're considering a national introduction through an established, commercial producer. Of course no where near what it cost years ago when a J&P might be gearing up to sell many hundreds of thousands of a single variety, but it's still a sizeable chunk of cash. No one is going to gamble that kind of money on a plant until it has been tested in as many conditions and climates as possible and proven itself worthy in major markets. If you're not patenting it, I know of those who have raised a seedling one year and introduced it "commercially" the next. It's the testing and creating the ability to supply many thousands of plants, generating the advertising images and copy, supplying the "pipeline" which takes time and adds costs. Anything which allows that specific rose to be identified postively will start the clock. A seedling number, a test name, images showing something characteristic of that specific rose, anything which could be used like a finger print, can start it. Identifying it as a cross between two parents shouldn't because there can be many thousands of seedlings raised between two roses. But if you say seedling #, code named "xyz" which is a single, pink shrub, then you have "introduced" that rose. That information can specifically identify that exact variety. You have "finger printed" it. Once you publicly post photos of it which can further be used to identify it specifically, you have introduced it. If that specific bloom is contained in a group shot of many seedlings or other plants and not specifically identified by name or number, you're OK because you haven't identified that variety. Bottom line is, unless you are well-heeled and patenting the rose purely out of vanity, an "amateur" is probably better off NOT patenting a plant. You will never recoup the investment unless you can generate and SELL enough plants to cover all of your costs. Kim