These are my Alba hips tonight and they are immature by about 3 to 4 weeks for some. Unfortunately even though Mme Plantier, Mme Legras de St Germain, Armide, Blush Hip and Pompom Blanc Parfait bloomed this year there are no hips. Princesse de Lamballe was moved last fall and is recovering ... and I know I planted Amelia and Minette but can remember where or they may not of made it. I believe I have all labeled as received, except I refuse to acknowledge the one received as "Alba Maxima" as correct and consider it to be Great Maidens Blush. I also consider my labeled "Great Maidens Blush" to be Alba Maxima - my garden my choice ... yukyuk. Alba Maxima Alba semi-Plena Chloris Jeanne d'Arc Félicité Parmentier Königin von Dänemark Great Maiden Blush Suaveolens A couple of others of interest also; R. spinosissima Theresa (Therese) Bugnet) - first time I have noticed a hip - you can bet I'll be trying to see if I can germinate it.

Hi Carol: I'm in 9a too, but near the border with 9b. Diamond Frost has been a staple in my garden since May 2007. As you mentioned, the delicate white flowers look like baby's breath and complement so many plants. I purchased only one plant but have added several more via cuttings. I've also noticed that the plant willingly roots at stem nodes that lay against the ground. It's a definite perennial for me without any special protection; all plants have returned from one year to the next. I can confirm that the plant is drought tolerant. Some of my plants are in full sun and others in part and I see no performance differences. I have sandy soil and most of the plants are very slightly elevated. However, there is one plant that is in a somewhat lower area and right now, with the monsoons we've had for the past weeks, it's nearly sitting in water - doesn't faze it! I've never seen a pest or disease and (I hesitate to say this for fear of a jinx) the rabbits don't eat it either! I've only grown the Diamond Frost. It was the only game in town in '07 and it hasn't given me reason to switch. If you like the plant, go for it. I think you'll be pleased. June

Setting seed is pregnancy. If the plant is stressed, it may not set seed. If, for some reason, the pollen didn't make it to the pistles to accomplish fertilization, or if the weather was not conducive to fertilization (too wet, too cold, too hot, etc.) seed won't be set. If the plant is too immature, it may not set seed. Just as with people, "getting pregnant" is hit and miss. Some are more fertile and willing to set seed than others. Those of us here in extreme heat areas quickly find out how late in the heat we can pollinate before it stops working. A friend out in Rancho Mirage, near Palm Springs, has already stopped pollinating because it's too hot for fertilization to work. I'm still pollinating here just north of Los Angeles because it's still working. If I allow the seed parents to dry out, they'll stop setting seeds. If I don't watch how I water and the pollinated flowers get soaked by the hose, fertilization might easily be stopped for those blooms. If your rose fits any of the mentioned categories, it could explain why seeds didn't set. Kim

The ol' soaking-the-seed "sink or float test" is a prime case of pervasive pseudo-science which has become so deeply entrenched within the "common knowledge" preconception of the public, that even many PROFESSIONAL horticultural authors (those with academic training) continue to peddle this nonsense within their publications. (To paraphrase a personally-modified version of my favorite adages: "If you repeat a lie often enough without challenging it, it eventually becomes doctrinal truth.") Essentially, this long-standing horticultural myth goes like this: When you soak your seeds overnight in a jar filled with fresh water (a form of 'scarification', to help initiate the process of softening an otherwise hard external seed coat, before sowing the seed), those seeds which sink to the bottom of the jar are presumably "viable", while those which float on the top of the water are considered "duds" (dead or infertile). Let me say this, here, and now: This is utter hogwash, because it blatantly ignores the vast diversity of evolutionary adaptations to seed structures. That is to say - that not all seeds (from various plant families/genera/species) are created equal. Some plants have SPECIFICALLY evolved their embryonic progeny (their seeds) to VERY DELIBERATELY float on water (e.i. - to be carried away by swift current) as a way to expand their territorial distribution; a strategy to improve the prospect of their offspring's ongoing survival. But if such seeds were to sink right to the bottom of a stream, river, or creek, then the prospect of their territorial spread would be significantly hampered. In other adaptational models, some seeds have evolved to be carried aloft by air, through wind dispersal, by employing "parachute"-like protruding tufts of silky, thin fibers ('pappus', for the scientific term, or alternative, 'coma'), and these light, ultra-fine, hair-like fibers will also keep the seed afloat should it happen to drift into a body of water. The genus of Asclepias ("milkweed") is an excellent example of such specialized seed structures. Taraxacum ("dandelions") is another. Heck, even among some plants belonging to the very same genus, such as Rosa ("rose"), one species of roses can yield seeds that tend to float (such as R. rugosa, "Beach Rose"), and another species of roses can yield seeds which tend to sink (such as R. pimpinellifolia, "Burnet Rose.") Hence, demonstrating how dynamically-variable these evolutionary adaptions are from plant to plant. In summary, the pervasive "sink or float seed-soaking viability test" SHOULD have been debunked and laid to rest, a long time ago. Because the Plant Kingdom is highly diversified, and that includes seed structures and their inherently variable environmental interactions. The short of it: Some seeds were meant to sink, others were meant to float, and others still will RANDOMLY do both. And yet, they may ALL still be viable, just the same. This renders the "sink or float test" not only grossly unreliable, but purely fictitious (and also, sadly wasteful, because who knows how many billions of viable seeds have been wrongfully discarded through such a fallacious notion). Still, the BIGGEST embarrassment of all, by far, is that even some prominent members of the horticultural/botanical community continue to dispense this myth to the public, when they should otherwise be reliable sources of competent information. The take-home message: Pre-soak your seeds and sow *all* of them, regardless of which ones "sink" and which ones "float." Nature will know best on how to sort out the duds, not you. (NOTE: Short of using sophisticated low-power radiographic imaging apparatus to look deep into a seed's cross-section/internal structure, and non-destructively so, determining seed viable/fertility to 100% accuracy is virtually impossible.)