I had read the comments from the Tea Bag ladies, but will go back to one of the first questions I asked about 'Francis Dubreuil', when this thread first began to drift from its original topic: Was the original 'Francis Dubreuil' a "true Tea", or was he a "Hybrid Tea"? Or was he that other thing, a "Tea hybrid"? The earliest descriptions of FD say his color was a dark red with pink or cerise or amaranth highlights. My assumption is that 'FD' was darker than other red Teas, but would not have looked terribly out of place hanging out with other reds such as 'Gen Gallieni', 'M. Tillier', 'Souv. de David d'Angers', 'Mlle Christine de Nouë', ''Corallina', 'Safrano a Fleurs Rouges', 'Princesse de Sagan', 'Bardou Job' and- of course- 'Souv de Therese Levet'. Here's a 1901 review from a German rose reviewer about Francis: "Francis Dubreuil (Dubreuil 1895) is not only one of the most excellent red Tea roses but also one of the best Tea roses of all. The flower is in fact only of medium size, and sometimes even small, but keeps extremely well. It lasts In bud form for a very long time, and is then at its most beautiful. The growth is vigorous and the crown is well branched. What I like most about this rose, is its capacity to produce solitary flowers on long, upright stems, I do not like roses in flower umbels (in clusters). Its floriferousness (flowering period) is very long, it lasts right up to the frosts." That mention of "solitary flowers on long, upright stems" makes me think we might find some HP ancestry in Francis' background, no? And it accords well with other early mentions of FD having "diffuse growth"... Here's an early discrepancy, though; the review above says 'FD' "lasts in bud form for a very long time, and is then at its most beautiful". Contrast that with an earlier British review- Francis "is described as full flower of a fine form, opening very readily, perhaps too much so"... So if Francis was dark red and had diffuse growth, he seems to be quacking like an early HT, and not a "pure Tea"? Was he classified as a Tea because of his fragrance? According to Guillot, 'FD' is descended from 'Souv de David d'Angers' (described as "deliciously fragrant" in 1864) who is in turn descended from 'Caroline', the Tea that may be synonymous with 'Bermuda Spice'. Some early reviews of 'FD' say he is fragrant, most say nothing, and at least one reviewer says "not fragrant". This assortment of varying opinions shouldn't be surprising, given humans' different capacities for smell, and given the way odors can vary according to temperature, time of day, etc. The scent of Tea roses seems to be especially elusive, and elicits a confusion of descriptions, so I'm inclined to believe that the original Francis probably had a Tea scent and was fragrant to some people and not to others. However, I think it's also possible that if there were an early confusion with at least one grower offering a different rose as 'Francis D', the differences in opinion about form and fragrance could stem from an early switcheroo. Just because there was a later mix-up with 'Barcelona' doesn't mean there wasn't also an earlier mix-up somewheres down the line. And if there were an earlier misidentification, this early imposter might be the rose that was later sent from Sangerhausen to Oz in 1981? Another question I have relates to size. The Tea rose grown by Mr Knight just outside of Sydney was a large rose bush. The roses grown in the U.S. and Oz as FD today both seem to be more compact and HT-like (although the Aussie plant that hails from Sangerhausen seems to have a earlier HT look than 'Barcelona' does?) I'm trying to get things straight in my own head, so if I'm off-course in my suppositions, please get me back on track. Virginia

The book I found (and still find) most helpful is Natural Landscaping by Diekelmann. He gives you the basics of landscaping (site analysis, creating a design, etc.) but from a native plants perspective. He describes the various plant communities of the U.S. and asks you to choose one (or more -- if your site has significant variation) and work with that community of plants, instead of picking and choosing native plants you like but that wouldn't really be growing together in the wild. The idea is that these communities evolved together and so it makes ecological sense to try to recreate them (on a small scale, in most cases, certainly yours) to some extent. The other suggestions are excellent too. I'd say Noah's Garden for inspiration and encouragement and the native plants philosophy, Diekelmann for the big picture of plant communities (lots of plant lists!) and hands-on landscaping instructions, and Cullina for the details on specific plants. Good luck! -- wd

grandbb, Here is a link to the Arizona Native Plant Society. They have a series of eight booklets - sort of like field guides - that should be helpful too. Plus, they area very affordable at $2.25 each. You can purchase them locally at the Desert Botanical Garden in Phoenix or Boyce Thompson Arboretum near Superior, but if you have time you could order them before your visit. I hope this helps. Cathy Here is a link that might be useful: Arizona Native Plant Society publications

I always wonder how they can get themselves in so deep, that they can't see it coming and try to stop themselves. I know it's easy to get used to something, so that you don't even see it anymore. Like that laundry basket that's sitting in the corner (with Roxie sleeping in it). My empty flower pots that are behind the chair next to the window. Pens, Marie? I LOVE pens! and paper....