Most of my favorites have been mentioned. I'm getting some small plants of Penstemon 'Dark Towers' which is supposed to be an improved version of 'Husker Red'. For dark-leaved plants I'd add several varieties of Hardy Geranium such as 'Midnight Reiter' or 'Expresso' Also consider some of the yellow-foliaged perennials such as Golden Tansy- either 'Isla Gold' or 'Aureum'- they are both quite different. Another beauty is Centaurea 'Gold Bullion'- not only does it have brilliant gold foliage but also pure blue flowers. I have a rule of thumb for perennials- for every 3 I plant for the flowers, I have to plant 1 primarily for foliage. Whether it's red, variegated, gold, blue or gray OR a unique size or texture (like ornamental rhubarb). It isn't a hard and fast rule or anything but it does make a big difference. Perfectly coordinated bloom times just don't matter as much when you've balanced for foliage too. The beds would look great without a single bloom just because of the foliage. You're on the right track adding some good foliage plants to the mix.

and this is to compare how a healthier leaf on the left looks next to one that is starting to change color on the right - it's a different shade of green, as you see. No pronounced spots yet, but this is how it starts.

Whaas, 'Whitespire' is another birch that gets my dander up, lol! It's a dog in all respects, misnamed (It's a gray birch cultivar, not platyphilla or whatever the claim always is), is not very white-barked, and in all respects just spins things drastically wrong, IMO. I think it was even promoted or developed by UW-W. Anyway, yeah, not one of my favorites, not even one which I would consider worthy of living, again lol'ing here. As to 'Avalanche', I have no idea. I am absolutely, strongly biased here though and I'll freely admit it. In my woods up north, which I sometimes consider a kind of racist place, the predominant species are white cedar, white (or paper) birch and white pine, lol! I like just the species-run plants as they grow....and this is huge with me...where they occur naturally. So in a sense, my input here is of limited usefulness. In my paradigm, I'd probably question the need for any birch to be planted in places where they did not occur naturally, there being-again, to my view-so many better choices. But guys like Select Landscapes, etc. don't always have the luxury of adopting this point of view...I get that...and so, the hunt for a more widely-adapted birch will continue. Up in my woods, the paper birch are happy, healthy, and in some cases, truly enormous. Somehow down in the swamp, there are numerous replications of where a white cedar and a white birch have grown up together, their trunks in direct contact at the base, with the one seeming to embrace the other. To bad I'm so lame at posting pics. I bet a lot of people would really get a kick out of that. The "cedar" dates from forest fires in the 1930s, I am led to believe, and the birch, not being very shade-tolerant, probably got its start right around then too. So the birch grow much faster than the cedar and tower over them. Plus, there are yellow birch in that woods. My yellow birch may be intergrades with the paper birch though. I've heard they can do that and the yellows are not quite as attractive as those in hilly, more northern hardwood stands all over northern Wisconsin and Upper Michigan. But all in all, quite the place. Springs like crazy too. The only really good time to walk back in there is winter. 'Crimson Sentry' maples are very dense, pretty much on a par with most healthy Norway maples. But like you describe, a muddy color. Oh and Select landscapes....I concur with you....those terms leave a lot of room for slop. They're the best we've got, but it takes experience within one area, plus book knowledge, both of which you've obviously got, to make good predictions as to what plant might do what. Oh, and my Iowa comments pertained to all but that little area around McGregor which is so fascinating and looks so much like areas much farther north. I'm sure one or more birch species are native in that little pocket. +oM

I wrote this as a reply to something over on the botany forum and figured I'd be able to use it from time to time, so saved it. Let me know if you want anything explained a different way: A higher degree of expression of the pigment anthocyanin (which expresses the color red or purple) in juvenile foliage is very common throughout the plant kingdom for a couple of reasons. First, even though the pigment absorbs light w/o being a part of the photosynthetic process, it plays a photoprotective role for new leaves that emerge under high light conditions ...... when they are in an ontogenetic stage that make them more sensitive/vulnerable to light over-saturation. If you were able to quantify it at home ..... the reduction in anthocyanin's expression would be seen to correspond with a decreased need for photoprotection, this, because photosynthetic maturation allows leaves to utilize higher light intensities. A major consideration (that occurs during photosynthetic maturation) is an increase in chlorophyll, the pigment often referred to as 'nature's sunscreen for plants'. In short, the red coloration disappears as photopigment concentrations and leaf cuticle thickness increases, both of which would be occurring as mesophyll underlying the leaf cuticle differentiates into separate layers (pallisade and spongy). Second (but probably not a consideration in F benjamina), the red coloration is also very often associated with an increase in phenolic compounds that serve as defense against insect predation or herbivory by making leaves unpalatable. It's also thought in many circles that the red coloration may make leaves more difficult for some insects and herbivores to see, and may signal insects that the affected leaves are a less nutritional food source than bright green foliage elsewhere, or that it would make a poor receptacle for ovaposition (egg-laying). Al