I have seen this post often over the years. While I see no problem in rooting a cutting for myself, I don't do this. Once, I tried to root what I thought was a sport of Magic Lantern. It rooted but wasn't a sport. I kept it. I guess the rose police could charge me. I also inadvertently rooted a Morden Blush. It grew from a tiny pruning left on the ground all winter. Someone on the forums here told me I should kill it. Really, new roses are so inexpensive, when you compare them to daylilies, that can go up to or over $200 the first year introduced. Why not just pay the $, as has been said. Roses are not as easy to hybridize as dayliies, which are much easier to propagate. Patenting daylilies would be really futile. Just my silly 2 cents. Kathy

I am near Sacramento and have both. Eureka is a prolific bloomer, a yellow with tinges of pink-orange at times. It can have large clusters. Mine is a standard, 4 feet across almost. Molineux is more of the Austin form with lots of tiny petals. Can also have orange tinges in heat. Mine has more long thin, upright canes than Eureka, which spreads more. It blooms alot but doesn't seem to last as long as Eureka. If I was forced to choose one, it would be Eureka. But you can't go wrong with either. Do you want to see photos? Kathy

like this one? * Posted by aliska12000 5a (My Page) on Wed, Jul 30, 08 at 23:12 catsrose, CA has paved millions of acres for millions of resource-devouring cars I have given that subject much contemplation, it has greatly angered me at times, even now in Iowa, parts of CA and huge megapolises are a total turnoff to me because of the labyrinthe of freeways, and so wished we didn't have so many fatal accidents, especially since we had one main shopping area, downtown, then malls became so popular. Those huge parking lots paved over with concrete or asphalt and so much driving to get anywhere now because it's all spread out and much of it major ugly imo only, now much abandoned and left urban decay behind because business would be better somewhere else, plus most or all of it can be expensed off of income for business. But I'm not against all corporations because I don't perceive everything as corporate greed or evil, some, yes. But with all due respect, I believe banning personal ownership of cars is too extreme. I don't feel like I hog more than my share of the world's resources with my old, small car which I drive very seldom. I cherish the right to own one car at a time of my own and love the freedom it gives me even though I'm aware of the risks and downside. What I cherish for myself, I could not be complicit in imposing on others (sure feel like it sometimes with crooks, drug runners, speeders, drunk drivers, maniacs on the roads and too many semis and large vehicles now). The interstate system was supposed to be safer we were told, and indeed it seemed to be in the beginning, liked the older roads but felt safer on the uglier, not-very-scenic interstates and freeways. Not any more. The little people would be the first to lose their rights and not only if cars were banned.

Your photo of 'Princess Alex.Of Kent' could be the cover photo of a rose catalog. Which would increase their sales substantially. Jaw dropper. I just inherited a 'Molineux'. Terrible time digging it. Massive "crown" or whatever it would be called. But the canes are still green and unshriveled. I would love to see a bloom like yours.