Kevin,
Are you forgetting that you are addressing a bunch of plant obsessed zealots here? As long as there is a market for the newest, the latest-and-greatest, I expect you will see this trend continue.

I could not agree less. I absolutely love the new doubles and piecrust daylilies. I have only one so far, Siloam Double Classic (all those pastel ruffles, yum) but will be getting several of the piecrust bicolors soon. How could you not love this:
{{gwi:246866}}

I will admit I wish they would turn their active minds toward developing disease and insect and drought resistant plants. That would be real progress

I have to agree to some extent, although OTOH sometimes the newer cultivars really are winners. Goes both ways, I guess...

Forgot to add that I have found over the years that the old tried and true cultivars tend to really perform well with little maintenance (outside of routine maintenance, of course) while I tend to have more trouble the newer ones petering out over time or just not performing as well as the old ironhorses.

I am now trying to stay away from the new stuff until it's been around a couple years and can get some feedback from others in my area or on the boards. I've wasted too many dollars on new stuff that I consider to be duds (don't even get me started on Endless Summer hydrangea, I've done enough ranting over that marketing crock-o-hooey on the hydrangea board, realiable bloomer with no winter protection my a$$). Then again, every once in a while the urge hits and I just have to try something new, but if I do I now buy only one or two plants instead of the usual drift of the them to see how they do before investing more money.

It seems to me that some plants lend themselves very readily to manipulation of flower color without sacrificing desirable traits - like iris, daylily, impatiens, dahlias. A big exception is the Golden Zebra - yellow striped daylily - what a weak plant - don't buy it.

But clearly others are not so easily pushed around.

I'm reminded of what we have done to dogs in breeding for color and certain physical traits - in some breeds the temperament of these dogs has all been destroyed - ok I know I won't make friends here but have you tried to pet or play with an Irish Setter or a Dalmatian lately - compared to when you were a kid? Some dogs are passing along genetic predisposition to diseases, bone and other problems because we are not crossing out enough to create genetic diversity. Enough on dogs, but the plant kingdom is being manipulated similarly and we will sometimes get undesirable traits along with what we were breeding for. I think the follow-on problem is when plants are released too quickly to mass market and those undesirable traits aren't known yet.

Kevin--if you like a clump of Hyperion, give a clump of Tetrina's Daughter a try. It's nocturnal and very fragrant.

Beancounter--lovely photo. If you like Siloam Double Classic, try Frances Joiner too. I have never been a big fan of doubles, but these two are beauties.

I like the old daylilies best for the perennial borders and beds. Don't think I have anything newer than 2000. Can't bring myself to pay introduction prices and would rather have my daylilies tried and true. If a daylily has been growing for a while and doing while at a daylily farm in the middle of IL, IA, IN and OH then I know it will do just fine in my garden . While I drool over the latest photos of daylilies, I would not want a garden full of some of the color combinations, I'm not a big fan of contrasting eyes either.

I started daylilies because I ran out of things I wanted to try on the perennial market, how many Heuchera, Echinacea, ect can one have before they all begin to look alike or the garden begins to just look downright gaudy or boring.

Kevin, I agree that a lot of these manipulated plants make me shake my head in dismay. Granted, quite a few are beautiful, but some of them...

I know this is the perennial forum, but I saw trailing snapdragons being sold last year and my immediate reaction was what the hell? What would anyone want to do that that to a snapdragon?

I agree with you, Kevin. Some of the newer echinaceas, for example, make me roll my eyes although I know that lots of people go crazy for them.

If you can variegate it, someone will buy it.

"If you can variegate it, someone will buy it." - How true, how true.

I don't know. I guess it's all a matter of personal taste, but I still find it hard to improve on some basic flower shapes. How is a tulip that looks like a peony better than the original? Already mentioned my dislike for the double daylilies and lilies. Those strange Echinaceas are just too odd for me.

My main plant obsession is orchids. Talk about plant breeders gone wild!! After a while all the new hybrids coming onto the market just made my mind go numb, so I started to collect species almost exclusively. The simple beauty of these plants is just more to my liking and the same thinking is starting to work its way into my garden. For example, I've pretty much given up on the flamboyant iris hybrids. The historical varieties are just more to my liking. Again, personal taste.

I'm curious if anyone is making predictions as to what is being planned for the future? You know, they way they talk about medicine in the future or technology in the future? Is anyone working on a ever-blooming peony or coconut palm hard to zone 3?

K

I am an avid wildlife gardener, and my primary goal to create wildlife habitat, in a creative and beautiful way. I love to attract the birds, pollinators, toads, beneficial insects, etc. to the yard and gardens. The more busy little critters, flitting about, the better. And the more flowers, the better too! :)

With respect to that, I garden strictly organically with an emphasis on native plants. For the most part, the plan is to have native plants occupy the prime real estate in the yard. Non-natives are okay too as long as they are non-invasive and aren't high maintenance. I am not going to pamper non-natives, and staking the peonies is pushing it, but they really are so beautiful so I do stake a few.

I think some of the new cultivars are beautiful, like the daylily above, but I don't buy them or collect dozens of different types of hostas or hellebores. Some of them are just weird - I don't get what anyone sees in the Doppleganger Echinacea? It looks like a flower with genetic defects (which it probably is).

But to each their own. If people want to spend their money on plants or whatever that's their choice. One thing for sure, corporate America will figure out a way to part the consumer from their money if they possibly can.

200 years from now? Assuming man hasn't wiped himself off the planet through war or acts of gross stupidity, I think you'll probably be able to get just about any type of plant you desire via genetic engineering. Fire-engine red clematis, true blue cattleya, jet black paph, or rich yellow african violet --- no problem. We'll just insert this gene in here and .....

In a way it would be interesting if that should come to pass. No telling what sort of designs people would come up with. On the other hand, I don't think I'd be as impressed. Almost be too easy.

One thing nobody mentioned is the breeding (or sometimes just the bringing to market) of new plants of a smaller size than the original or more common plant. Although some of the impact & showiness of the plant may be lost by the downsizing, many of them do fit better in my smaller yard. I really would not want to be without some of my dwarf shrubs and perennials, such as dwarf goatsbeard (Aruncus aethusifolius), the small lady's mantle (Alchemilla erythropoda), dwarf meadowsweet (Filipendula palmata Nana), my mini daylilies & small collection of tiny hostas, my Mops mugo pines (2ft X 2ft)and especially my dwarf thornless Hawthorn trees.

I think I sense a lack of candor here.
For a gardener to say that they are unmoved by a dramatic new or unusual plant strikes me a bit like people saying they only watch public television - none of that Survivor or Oprah for me.
I don't agree that the new hybrids or cultivars are going too far, rather, I think they often don't live up to expectations - so perhaps aren't going far enough or aren't unique enough to warrant all the hoopla. So perhaps, then, a wait-and-see attitude (with the occasional lapse of will power) is the most realistic approach.

Speaking of being moved by a "dramatic new or unusual plant", there's Rudbeckia 'Green Wizard', about which the reviewer states:

"Its unusual flowers stand unassuming until closer inspection reveals that the plant is a genetic freak of no garden value whatsoever."

Alright, I made up the last part of that sentence.
It's not the only such mutation to be marketed as something desirable.

I'm waiting to see a rebound of interest in standard to large sizes of perennial varieties, with stately form and lengthy bloom around which you can anchor a bed/border. This year I had a nearly 7-foot white Filipendula dominating for several weeks in late spring/early summer. I have a dwarf Filipendula too.

Somewhere.

Thanks for all the great responses so far.

In reality, the whole issue is probably more complex than I originally thought. Maybe what I'm really objecting to is the fact that big business has taken over yet another aspect of our lives and the endless quest for profits rears its ugly head in what and how the latest plants are now marketed. It's a fact that most Americans are obsessed with having more stuff - new, better, bigger, brighter, the latest. Sometimes I think that's what gardening is becoming for a whole group of people. It's too frantic - the endless quest for something better immediately.

Whenever I listen to a TV or radio program talking about the latest trends in decorating, or fashion, or now gardening I want to throw up. Can't people simply decide on their own what they like and dislike? Does everything have to change year to year? That's stupid. Isn't it obvious to everyone who is profiting by this follow-the-trend mentality?

I purchased exactly one new perennial this year: Echinacea Meadowbrite. I've been reading and listening to folks talk about this one for some time now. Then I saw it at a garden center for a really good price. OK, I'll take a chance. So far, I'm not convinced it's going to live up to all the hype. The flower color is pretty, but it really doesn't look too much like an Echinacea. That's not bad I guess, but I'll have to give it a few more years to see how it performs.

Oh yes, I was out in the garden early this morning and saw a whole bunch of new flowers on my Hem. Hyperion. Perfection!!

Kevin

"It's too frantic - the endless quest for something better immediately."

That quest comes from within myself (see my recent post re: are gardeners ever satisfied?). I am not one to run out and buy something just because it's the latest and greatest, but I do run out and buy something RIGHT NOW if I want it and/or think a particular spot needs that plant for whatever reason. I'm constantly striving for perfection, even though I know that's not attainable.

"I'm waiting to see a rebound of interest in standard to large sizes of perennial varieties, with stately form and lengthy bloom around which you can anchor a bed/border."

Agree! It's great to have a wide selection of dwarfs, but sometimes a large plant is called for, especially in larger/wider beds where too many shorter plants just looks "off". I don't have room for a lot of really large perennials in the house I'm in now, the tallest I have is a grouping of zebra grass (which is one of the most complimented plantings in my garden). I enjoy seeing those stately plants in other gardens, though, some of them are quite elegant. :)

Also, when a plant is dwarfed, sometimes it really is just a mini version of the original, but other times it loses a lot of the character of its taller counterpart.

Forgot to mention this before I posted the above:

This is a passage from one of my favorite books EVER.

Green Thoughts
A Writer in the Garden
by Eleanor Perényi

"One looks forward to the peony season as to the yearly visit of friends one loves, and the impulse to go whoring after novelties is, in me, quickly stilled. I could no more dig up these old friends and replace them with new ones than I could tell a human being that after thirty or forty years I was tired of his company."

If you've never read this book, you must.

K

While I agree that many new cultivars don't live up to their hype, there are some many new varieties of plants that come along that do seem to offer improvements over the plants of old - either in hardiness or aesthetics. And many of these are not the product of "Big Business", but rather, the result of lucky accidents by gardeners like you and me. Consider, for example, the previously mentioned Echinacea purpurea. How many of us would look at the species plant and consider it superior aesthetically to the cultivar 'Magnus' or a few of the other beautiful selections that have followed?
Let's try to remember that plant breeding and improvement has been going on for thousands of years and also that those new plants that truly offer nothing of real value will soon disappear from commerce.

eric oh, you should be a reviewer:~)

1. Every day I see people post: " It's so overused." "Parking lot daylilies." "Too common, wouldn't have one of those." "So blah, everybody has one." "Boring" That's why there are so many new introductions every year. People think the tried and true are boring.

2. People think the tried and true are 'invasive'. Older plants tend to be larger, self seed and be strong growers in the garden. People will not tolerate strong plants. They want them to stay forever in their dwarf clump. If we took a poll on which causes the most horror among modern gardeners, aggressive plants would win over mutant hybrid weeklings. I think we need to give hybridizers credit for trying to breed what people want.

Interesting and enjoyable thread. Thank you, Kevin!

:)
Dee

Gweirdo, I'm not sure why you sense a lack of candor. There are as many different tastes in gardening as there are gardeners, I imagine.

Sure some of the new cultivars are beautiful. Sure there are gorgeous flowers from every corner of the world. But with THOUSANDS of cultivars of Hemerocallis or Iris already in existence, how does one get moved by a few more new ones? Frankly it gets a little overwhelming.

This weekend I was weeding next to a large patch of plain old red Monarda didyma that is in full bloom right now. I got a few starts from my mother many years ago, brought some with me when I moved. Who knows where she got it years before that.

Suddenly a male rubythroat flew up and started to feed. I stood very still and watched it go from blossom to blossom for nearly 10 minutes. At one point it was only 2 feet away from me, I could have reached out and touched it, but I did not move and it was not scared by my presence.

I was thrilled! Now that's what I find moving. :)

Justmetoo, I had never heard of Tetrina's Daughter. My favorite daylily is Hyperion but I wish it would bloom longer. I will definitely be looking for Tetrina's Daughter.

That said while I often prefer the old simple single flowers, I love love love the colors of many of the new echinaceas.

As far as Daylilies go, hybridizers are trying to pass on not just a pretty face, but improve branching, foliage habits, and just improve the plant its self period. Out of thousands of seedlings planted every year only a small percentage are actually introduced. But only after studying the seedlings to see which ones are the best, and the rest are off to the great compost heap in the sky. Therefore only the best are introduced and sold, and used for breeding. Most hybridizers frown on inbreeding a plant, like people do with pedigree dogs. Most of the oldies but goodie do perform well, and their genetics have been passed down to some terrific plants that can out perform their great grand parents. I have old and new in my garden and cross them both, but I try to only pick ones that could pass on desirable traits for the plant as a whole! -Jessica

terrene,
My comments were intended to be at least partially toungue-in-cheek. I do think that the fact that we, as gardeners, have so many choices in plants is not a bad thing. It just requires us to do a bit more investigation about the plants being offered, and to make some judgments about the relative merits of these new plants. In the end, we will all vote on these new plants with our wallets, and hopefully, the best new offerings will prevail.

About that new daylily photo near the top of the page, not only can i look at at and not love it, but my first impression was "deformed", by the weird partial petals in the middle and anthers sticking out in between. Yuck.

Kevin your quote was a nice addition to this thread.

And since we are all internet-related, this might be an appropriate quote also.

"Oh the comfort, the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person, having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words, but pouring them all right out, just as they are -- chaff and grain together -- certain that a faithful hand will take and sift them, keep what is worth keeping, and with the breath of kindness blow
the rest away."

-- Credited to George Elliott and to an unknown author, I'm not sure who was the author.

"But with THOUSANDS of cultivars of Hemerocallis or Iris already in existence, how does one get moved by a few more new ones?"

The breeders are largely aiming at collectors, who constantly want something new (and will pay for it). Same thing goes for hostas. I like them, but am perfectly happy buying inexpensive ones that have been on the market for years (many of the new introductions look semi-interchangeable to me). In indoor gardening, the breeding craze has affected African violet growing to the point that any good variety gets lost in the succeeding surge of new ones, and it's hard to find dependable favorites.

I think the purpose of hybridizing should be to improve on the plants and provide wider color variety; however, I think there's something to be said about using the real deal. Sometimes these big business growers rush plants to market before they really examine factors like hardiness and consistent, dependable performance. I shelled out a lot of cash for an Echinacea 'Razzamatazz' recently and, while the flowers are beautiful, they flop and lay on the ground so who can enjoy them? Sometimes nice flowers aren't worth overall performance. Maybe they should stick to trying to improve disease resistance and leave it at that. Although, if anybody comes up with a true blue daylily - I'm so there!!!!

alyrics - Thanks. Like that one too. Good words to remember when posting or responding on these forums.

Here's question for everyone:

If someone developed an ever-blooming or re-blooming peony would you want it? I picked that plant since I am a peony nut. I just can't wait for the season to begin and am always a bit sad when it ends. At the same time, I would never want them year round. Must admit, I was SHOCKED when I first heard about re-blooming iris! NO, NO, NO!!! There is a season for everything and that's the way I want it to stay.

Kevin

Very interesting exchange. What is the role of patented flowers...seeds and plants. God forbid that I would try to root a new type of coleus. Will they search the house for saved Marigold seeds? The plant police would arrest me. Am I by law required to compost the patented daylillies that have spread rather than give them to someone? Profits and plant police. The darker side of plant breeding. Joyce in Iowa

We all have different opinions, which is what makes gardening fun and all gardens different. I would buy (and have bought) reblooming iris, daylilies, salvias, etc. In fact, I prefer rebloomers to one-time bloomers.

I do think that some plants are being rushed to market too fast and they are not evaluated in each area adequately. For example, I've been afraid to buy Sambucus 'Black Lace' b/c I had 'Black Beauty' and it performed horribly in my yard. I'm waiting to get more feedback from GW people first.

Reblooming or longer blooming plants are more important now than 100 years ago, when Gertrude Jeckyll recommended having separate garden areas for each season. Most gardeners simply don't have that much property, especially those on urban & suburban lots, whose gardens are visible & need to look good for most of the year. While I would not want to have EVERYTHING be reblooming (there is a special charm to Spring ephemerals), reblooming plants have been a real boon to carrying the garden over those difficult summer months between the Spring explosion & the Fall finale.

" There is a season for everything and that's the way I want it to stay."

Excellent point, and one I agree with. I eargly antipate particular blooms and they're final arrival, particularly the spring bloomers. Having said plant re-bloom or bloom continuously would take away from that enjoyment. Like anything else - when have it too much or is available all the time, it somehow diminishes the specialness of it.

A neighbor of mine keeps offering me a piece of one of her mums. I LOVE mums, but have never taken her up on the offer. The flowers are the typical bronze color, but the plant starts blooming in June and continues all summer. I don't want a bronze mum blooming in June. September is great for that color, but not June.

Are you starting to think I'm kind of set in my ways??

K

June blooming mum? Thats bizarre. A few years ago there was an article in either Horticulture or Fine Gardening about the old sturdy mums that don't dieback in winter. Like Clara Curtis, Mary Stoker, etc. As far as I know those are all single daisy-type mums. I never would have bought Mary Stoker for myself from the description - straw colored flower, but what a great plant now that my sister gave me a shovel full a few years ago. It just ties everything together with that straw color shot with burgundy. And it stays small till about September - I don't even pinch it back.
I just searched on more info about mums and found 2 great articles - one 5 pager from the Natl Garden Assoc and one printed in the Boston Globe quoting Allan Armitage and others.

http://www.garden.org/subchannels/flowers/annuals?q=show&id=239&page=1

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/home/articles/2004/09/30/old_fashioned_mums_will_bring_new_life_to_late_fall_doorsteps/?page=1

Interesting topic. I've been gardening for nearly 40 years. From day one it has been pretty much a crap shoot. I wish I had the money for everything I have purchased that didn't survive. Either it was marketed wrong, or I didn't grow it right, or it was a money-maker that never would have survived no matter who grew it. Yet I never stop looking for new and unusual things. That's what turns me on. On the other hand, the things I have bought that did survive give me great joy, and counter the losses over and over again. So I continue and will do so until I can no longer bend over and plant, I'm sure. On the subject of daylilies, I am a hybridizer of those. For nearly 15 years now. There are specimens that are introduced for various reasons, but not all of them are anything near garden worthy. Some are strictly for hybridizers because they possess that little something different. Some are over-hyped and over-priced and the desire to own the latest and greatest overcomes our common sense. As for myself there is nothing more pleasing than to go out into my seedling patch during it's first bloom season and see that daylily that up until this day, was never before. It's Christmas in July for certain. As in any culture there are honorable hybridizers and those who could care less and are in it for the money. But there are many of us who are creating for you all, new and unusual garden-worthy varieties that we are sure will give you years of pleasure. If you have never done hybridizing then I'm here to tell you that we all sacrifice most of our time and energies towards our product. All my extra time is spent in the pursuit of quality flowers. We are not talking minutes or hours, but days and years have been spent. We take it seriously. The tip of the iceberg has only just been tapped as to what the future holds. Patterns are beginning to be the rage, and the posibilities are endless. If you get a chance, go visit "www.northernmecca.com". A list of us hybridizers in and around the Dayton, Ohio area. I hope you will visit and I'm sure you will agree there is plenty to look forward to. Thanks to the original poster for such a worthy and fun topic...Bob Faulkner

Hi, Bob, nicely said! I appreciate all your hard work. Still waiting for that seedling you named for your sister!

Beancounter, I think your siloam double classic is beautiful! Nothing like a pretty pink double.

I think that one way or another things are always changing, its called evolution. People are just smart enough to help pass along desired traits. If we weren't dabbing pollen than the bee's and butterfly's would be doing it. I agree that some hybridizers are careless and only care about $$, but not all of them. There is such a diversity of people, and opinions, so why should there not be a diversity of plant cultivators to fit everyones taste.
My Gladiolas, liatris, and salvia always flop, but I would not get rid of them, just stake them up, cause they are still beautiful. Not sure if you could breed this tendency out of them.
I would love to have my iris rebloom! That way I would have more than just green foliage in parts of my gardens through out the growing season. Plus, I think some of them would be stunning blooming along with some of the summer blooming plants. I would still have the anticipation of waiting for the blooms after a long winter, cause they still bloom along with the other iris. Everyone has different preferences, and that is why it is nice to have something out there for everyone! -Jessica

alyrics - Thanks so much for those articles. Interesting reading. I still remember Clara Curtis from my grandmothers garden. For her, it started blooming in September and was always covered in butterflies. Mine usually starts sometime in August, but I can never predict that from year to year. I think it will be later this year. Love that plant!!

Bob - Thanks to you also for your great perspective. It's nice to hear from someone who makes some of these "evil", new plants. LOL It sounds like your work is truly a labor of love - the way it should be.

I must admit a few years ago I did a seed trade with someone who bred daylilies. I think she was an amateur, but the parent plants were appealing to me, so I did it. She sent me a few seeds each of 5 crosses and from these I raised about 20 seedlings. I can't tell you how exciting it was to see that first flower! I still have all of the plants and look forward to them blooming each year. I have no idea if they are anything special in the daylily world, but I love 'em.

Kevin

Echoing what has been said, it's the great diversity (gardeners and plants) that makes each one's spaces what they are. For me, if I had begun with a blank slate I probably wouldn't have arrived at my present point - but, "set in my ways" or just a little seasoned, the material I began with was too worthwhile and too proven to be replaced by something touted to be new and improved. That being said, additions are welcomed; and these forums have had a lot to do with it... hostas and bleeding hearts for my woodland garden, sedums, salvias, not new but new to me daylily varieties, northern developed viburnum for a gap in a mixed shrub border.

Failures, you bet. I'm the only person on the planet who can't grow hollyhocks, monarda, coreopsis, or Becky shasta; and it's not for lack of trying. But I can grow the old heucheras in full sun, split them apart to their lowest common denominator and have each little piece throw up blooming stalks.

It's taken me a while, but I understand the plants I have, my hardiness zone, soil conditions, exposure, the value of homemade compost, microclimates, what happens in winter without adequate snow cover, etc. In the event something would need to be replaced, that's the time to turn to the new - it's oftentimes all that's available.

I applaud plant hybridizers whose goal is to produce a product exhibiting the best of all possible qualities. It's a worthwhile endeavor and must be satisfying. And I don't discount the notion that my next foray to a garden center might be the "I've got to have this" moment. Set in my ways, maybe; but not unreasonable.

Hey Jessica, there are TONS of irises that rebloom reliably in MD -- where do you live? It's a rare Thanksgiving that I don't have irises and roses on the table, especially EARL OF ESSEX, REINCARNATION, TENNISON RIDGE, or the dwarves JEWEL BABY, ELEANOR ROOSEVELDT and BABY BLESSED. Most of these are at least a decade old, but through the work of local breeders like Don & Ginny Spoon of Winterberry Gardens, the range of color and reliability in rebloomers is really expanding. One of Ginny's reblooming introductions, DAUGHTER OF STARS, just won the Wister medal. The iris community is attempting to address the issues of disease-resistance and garden-suitability in its awards programs, too.

You just missed the DC-area AIS sale last weekend, but I brought home lots of extras, including pieces of several rebloomers -- contact me offline if you're near DC...

Lynn

Really interesting thread. As a scientist, I'm always really interested in what my fellow colleagues in the horticultural factories can come up with...genetic manipulation is not an easy feat, so seeing someone successfully develop a marketable product is quite impressive. That said, I would personally never put double-flowering day lilies in my garden. Now if they could make a day lily that would flower for longer than a day....now THAT would be something! :)

The entire corporatisation of plant hybridization is quite unfortunate, because more interesting hybrids that may not be perfect in everyone's gardens disappear from existence. To balance this, however, I think the home and amateur gardening community is much less susceptible to the sways of trends and fashions. We all have our favorites, most of us are adventurous, and we plant things in part to experience the awe of seeing something grow, flower and bear fruit rather than having perfect manicured marketable beauty.

I think on principle, gardening can mean different things to different people. To some, it is an art that appeals the aesthetics of each individual. As an artist, do you stop painting because the paint production process has become automated and refined; to the point at which you no longer have to go find beetle shells or crocus stamens to make your own colors, but rather, any color in any shade is available at your finger tips?

To others, gardening is a method of creating beauty with natural elements, and therefore it may feel strange or odd to put genetically manipulated plants/hybrids in the garden. I completely understand - I ran an all organic garden on campus with the mandate geared towards natural gardening. We stuck with native plants whenever possible, and it was fantastic. Sure there were times when I saw a perfect spot for some hybrid aquilegia, or hydrangeas. But at the same time, it felt nice to garden with a firm philosophy in place.

In the end though, I think I'm more of an artist - I grab anything that looks cool to me. To follow through with the allegory, I don't reject the entire palette based upon the fact that it was man-made, but I am selective in my colors. To put it in perspective, the Green Wizard Rudbeckia that was previously shown may cause most of us to recoil in horror, but if it had been presented as a newly discovered species of Rudbekia, would it have been met with the same response? Are we being exclusive because aesthetically it is unappealing, or does it conflict with our desire to maintain 'natural' gardens? Personally I find it quite 'zen', although it's a little too alien-like for my tastes.

I am fairly new to gardening, so I hesitated to step in to this discussion, but I thought I would add a newbie's perspective.

Until we moved to our new home last year, I had always lived in homes where the landscaping had already been done. I might of added a few things here and there, but I mostly just maintained the existing gardens. We moved to a semi-rural area, with no big box stores, and a blank canvas dirt yard. So I turned to the internet for shopping options. The choices were overwhelming to me. Once I started researching the ones that caught my eye, I was able to narrow my selections, since many of the things that were common in the south where I was raised, won't grow here. I would love to have the old fashioned dogwoods and azaleas I grew up with, but I have discovered plenty of plants that thrive in this high desert climate. At the time, I didn't know that the echinaceas I ordered were the latest and greatest thing. I didn't even know what a hybrid was! Much of the knowledge I have gained has been through the experiences of other gardeners on the GW forums, and the bounty of information available on the internet.

For me, it is a matter of finding colors that appeal to my eye, that will hold up to the harsh climate here, and fit into my small garden without taking over. I am glad there are plenty of options out there, that way I'm certain to find things that will thrive for me, and give me years of pleasure.