I don't know much about any of this, but IMHO, there's non-native and invasive, and it may be a bit of overkill (literally) to rip out the former when the concern is more with the latter--assuming, of course, the former is not a problem in its own right (in terms of needing a lot of water or pesticides). As humans, we are forever bending nature to shape our will. There is a greater interest in and desire for native plants, and I gather the native plant store here is doing just fine. But most suburbs are loaded up with plants that are at least not native to this area, if not even the US, because that's just what the standard has been (and in some cases, what the HOAs demand). I'd be more interested in seeing people get rid of their lawns than their non-native flowerbed plants, personally. But as someone without a lawn, it's very easy for me to get on a soapbox about it. My balcony has a number of non-native plants--on a microcosm level, nothing is actually native to my balcony, LOL, except concrete. Many are not local, like the plumerias. Others are from other countries, like the mandevilla and perhaps a succulent or three. But then I read that mandevillas aren't even found in their original habitat now. Still, as some note, things move around whether you like it or not. The gecko is now found everywhere in the world, traveling about on ships, and largely fits in nicely wherever it goes. Of course, the Chinese rat flea did the same thing hundreds of years ago and was nowhere near as welcome. :-) Meanwhile, the invasives in Hawaii and Australia destroy ecosystems in a heartbeat. I guess my two cents about the OP's situation is this: If they were ripping out non-natives that weren't causing any issues on the basis of some philosophy that non-natives are inherently evil and must be destroyed, I think that's a bit messed up. On the other hand, if their goal was to create a native garden (and more or less bill it as such), it's fine. In other words, I'm looking at motive--is it to *destroy* the non-natives or is to *create* natives? For some reason, that matters to me.

As always, Ron is offering very sage advice. I'll comment further on Galle's 'AZALEAS'. It is THE best azalea book to date, with hundreds (over 360) of beautiful photographs. However, it was last revised in the late 80's I think! Someone correct me if I'm wrong about that. With access to the internet, PLUS a book like this one, you can't go wrong. New hybrids are presented all of the time, and book publishing just can't keep up with it. Even though Galle discusses over 6000 cultivars, he's outdated by now. 'AZALEAS' can be found at various on line book stores, new and used.

When you are looking for books keep in the back of your mind that often times books will make you think the plants/shrubs and trees are native when they are not. Often times they are listed for hardiness zones. For instance, one of the books I have is called "Trees and shrubs of Central Ontario". This book contains every tree and shrub that "will grow" in central Ontario, not trees and shrubs "native" to Central Ontario. If you do some homework and find out what is native to your region and local area it will help you immensely to figure out what is "native" rather than what grows well in your area. Have fun. My husband and I are restoring our woodlot backyard and enjoying looking for plants, shrubs, ferns, trees and mosses that are native to our specific city. Barb

If you like paper piecing, Carol Doak has several books along the line of "500 blocks for paper piecing" - that sort of thing. I have one called Around the Block (or maybe Around the Block Again) which is all blocks made from squares & rectangles. Lots of cute picture blocks in it. I also have one called Block Magic which has lots of designs, but I find the instructions a little hard to follow. They give you cutting sizes for squares & rectangles, but for other shapes you have to go to templates in the back of the book. Donna