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.

Although I probably have no right to be livid, I will be, until they plant me; and I'll never spend 5 cents with the company that has claimed it as their own, saying they "developed" it. I don't intend to identify the bean at this point in time. When and if I ever get over being livid, I'll try and figure how to proceed--and probably identify it then. It's history, as I know it, is that it came down from my paternal great-grandfather from Virginia, who fought and died in the Civil War. (Ironic that my great grandfather on my mother's side (from New york) died at Gettysburg, fighting for the OTHER side). My paternal grandfather, who was born in 1856 and died in 1953, grew it and gave it sparingly to family members, and a few very special friends. It was later grown by my father and uncles, until they died; for the past 20 years, I have grown it. I had intended to (eventually) get it into commerce through SSE, or something similar. It IS unique--by its taste and, mostly, its shape, which is like no other (easily identified). Nevertheless, it was sort of a family thing. It was special, and the people who received it from my family were special enough to understand that you don't try to profit from a special vegetable given to you by a special friend; for example, by renaming it and saying you developed it, and offering it for sale so that YOU may profit from it. A very rare bean, but I saw it in the possession of another gardener about 20 years ago, and knew that there was at least one other source. I just never thought I'd see it in a seed catalog with a goofy name, and the company saying they "developed" it. If they had said they had stumbled across it--which is, no doubt, what happened--I probably wouldn't be upset. But to say they developed it and call it a hybrid is what ticks me off. As I said, there was never another like it sold commercially (and I've been reading seed catalogues annually for the past 50 years); and I know it by seeing it--it can't be mistaken for another. So, that's why I'm livid--whether I have any right to be, or not. Maybe I'm upset because I should have gotten it into commerce--at least I would have told the truth about its origin, as I know it. Maybe I'll start a seed company and sell it by its true name. Anyone got any other suggestions?

I know that kellyknits had one that she had tentatively labeled as Grey Ghost. It's supposed to have grey flecking that's so dense the leaves appear almost solidly silver-grey. Here's a picture of Kelly's plant. I thought someone else had it, too - maybe they will speak up. I received one from David called carnosa Lime Green* that has really taken off for me lately, so I'm hoping it will bloom soon and I can find out what that's all about. There's a photo of these green blooms here. ** or perhaps Cream One? LOL This post was edited by greedyghost on Thu, May 30, 13 at 17:14

Well folks, NOT ALL Gold Standard that are mottled are HVX diseased. Get to know the difference, as Ken and others have explained. And some one should explain the background history that the Dutch plant growers years ago found they had HVX infected soil but continued to send all their field grown Gold Standard around the world, due to the tremendous demand for it. Those diseased plants continue to find their way into our nurseries - it hurts to see them in nurseries everywhere I go, and more cultivars now than just Gold Standard. Early Gold Standard clumps in my mother's garden showed color changes which we concluded were just "unstable" Gold Standard: at an Indianapolis AHS Natinal Convention back in the 1980's there were probably 20-30 gorgeous Gold Standard clumps of all different colored and mottled leaves. Some of those plants probably came from Marge Soules, who would have received them from Mom. She and Marge discusssed the possibilities they wree diseased, but in fact the weaker ones always died out from poor genetics: HXV is plainly different. Note the recent American Hosta Journal article on the genetic mutations from Gold Standard (Moonlight, Richland Gold, Someting Different, Brenda's Beauty, Striptease, etc). Hope that helps. I agree with and recommend you throw away any Hosta with HVX - sterilize the soil area, not grow hosta in its spot for a couple of years. Coral Bells, Forget-me-nots, corydalis, European ginger etc. should grow well. Bruce Banyai