Think of Ribes aureum var. aureum as the non-fragrant western form and R. aureum var. villosum as the fragrant form found more or less east of the Rocky Mountain front to Nebraska and somewhat beyond. California has, in addition to var. aureum, its own Coast Range subspecies, var. gracillimum which sounds less hardy but delicious. The western form var. aureum is adapted more to the semi-arid steppe and intermountain country of the American west, while var. villosum is adapted to the great plains. The only available nursery cultivars that I know of in America are Crandall from 1888 and Gwen's Buffalo Currant, which is a selection from Wyoming. Both of these are selections of R. aureum var. villosum. Crandall is a particularly large fruited form which is reported to be disease resistant and hardy. Variety aureum might not thrive so well in more humid climates but it is well adapted to cold, heat, and drought. The plant is reported to have a long deep taproot. Check out the nafex discussions on Crandall Currant, Golden Currant, Buffalo Currant, Clove Currant, Ribes odoratum, villosum, and aureum. There is a lot of good information there mainly from around ten years ago. You may actually have better luck finding cultivars in Europe. There is a Swiss guy and firm just recently marketing R. aureum as what he calls "Fourberry". You can find him on Youtube. This is probably derived from var. villosum. I would guess it is patented. If you find it available in UK I would be interested in your report. The berries look very large and black but he says an orange form will come out soon. Ribes aureum var. aureum in the western USA must have a tremendous level of variety in flavors, colors, and local adaptations but it seems to have been totally neglected by plant breeders in spite of its very good flavors. Even var. villosum has little to show but those two cultivars, which are simply selections and not really improved since. Crandall is often marketed as an ornamental currant (Clove Currant) on account of those showy flowers with their spicy clove-like fragrance. Reports on the flavor or Crandall are generally pretty good, with most people finding the fruit quite good and the yield high. Europeans seem to prefer the stronger flavors of the European black currant however. Those European black currants are certainly the best for cooking with. This is mostly just information that I have found online, but I do have my own local form of Ribes aureum var. aureum here with orange berries which actually seem to taste like oranges to me. The berries are only about 1 cm large but pretty good eating and quite unlike any other currant that I have ever eaten. Having found no record of anyone ever even attempting a cross between var. villosum and var. aureum, several years ago I crossed Crandall with my orange fruited native variety. The resulting plant bloomed heavily this season with a very good fragrance. It does show intermediate features, seems vigorous, and set a good crop of berries. I am quite curious just how these berries will turn out later in the summer. Further amateur breeding is in the works, which is why I am so interested in Fabaceae_native's report on his NM forms of Ribes aureum. Those diverse colors, large fruit, good flavors, and particularly that trait of the withered flowers falling free are very interesting and attractive.

"If it doesn't really mean that, is there any real reason to stay with strictly "native" plants rather than ones "adapted to the environmental conditions"." There have been some wonderful threads on this question. I've put in a link to one of them here, and there is also some good stuff in the FAQs. I think you'll find a wide variety of personal takes on the native vs. non-native issue. One thing just about everybody agrees on is to avoid planting, spreading or encouraging non-native invasive plants, including those that spread when birds eat the seeds and fly away to plant them in the wild. Two big debates are: (1) what is a native? and (2) what about non-invasive non-natives? The 'what is a native' debate involves issues such as: (1) how far back do you go? do we assume that pre-European conditions are pristine or do we acknowledge that indigenous peoples manipulated the flora by burning, clearing, etc.? Do you say that plants that were native before the ice ages but never made it back up north in the centuries since are still native? (2) is native to the U.S. enough, or to my state?; my county?; (3) if something is native to a wetlands in your state, and you don't have a wetlands on your property (or your property was not a wetlands in the pre-European past), then is that plant native to your property? (same for sunny, wooded, alkaline, acid, etc.); (3) are any or all cultivars and hybrids natives? The 'what about non-invasive non-natives' debate is largely scientific, I think (I may get lots of disagreement here). Those of us who want to see the ecological diversity of pre-Colombian America restored (even a tiny bit) prefer to spend all our time and energy on natives. If the goal is restoring, recreating or honoring native plant communities (not just individual species), then there is no real place for non-natives, or at least no reason to expend time and energy on them. I see each native in my yard as a piece of a complex puzzle that includes the climate, the soil conditions, the wildlife, even the bacteria -- this puzzle gives me just a hint of what the tiny piece of land I am stewarding was like during the time of the pyramids, the Roman empire, the middle ages and early Renaissance, before the European immigrants artificially speeded up the natural processes of species distribution to a dangerous level. Adding a non-native is like trying to fit a piece of a different puzzle into the picture. One puzzle at a time is all I can handle. But if you are making a garden with native plants in it (as opposed to a native plant community), many people are perfectly comfortable with mixing natives and non-natives (as long as they are not invasives). For some people, native plants are a much-overlooked treasure trove of beautiful, interesting plants that serve a myriad of purposes. Anything that increases the cultivation of natives will, in the long run, help maintain and restore the vanishing diversity of our plant communities. I do think the point about 'adapted to local conditions' is a good one. Many native plant enthusiasts will remark that natives require less water, less soil amendment, less fertilizer, pest control, etc., than non-natives. But this is not true for all cases. A plant from Asia that grew in conditions identical to those in your yard may not need water, soil amendment or fertilizer (although pest control may be worse), while a so-called native plant that thrives in very wet conditions in your area will need lots of care if you try to plant it in a spot that's too dry. To me, that means the plant is not really native to the spot where you planted it, but this may seem like nitpicking. Sorry for the long-winded sermon -- this stuff really matters to me, -- wd Here is a link that might be useful: Helpful thread

To give up defeats the whole purpose of vermecomposting. The worm industry has chosen for the gain of money to sell Eisenia foetida, and "European Night crawlers. Very few if any sell a native worm to the area. To be Green is to change,not to give up.Below is part of a study, WORM COMPANY'S WAKE UP!!!!!!!. Eisenia foetida, or"European Night crawlers."are non native worms,This is why we with any non-native species, it is important not to allow them to reach the wild. Their voracious appetites and reproductive rates (especially among the red wigglers) have been known to upset the delicate balance of the hardwood forests by consuming the leaf litter too quickly. This event leaves too little leaf letter to slowly incubate the hard shelled nuts and leads to excessive erosion as well as negatively affecting the pH of the soil. So, do your best to keep them confined! Eisenia foetida From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Eisenia fetida, known under various common names, including redworms, brandling worms, tiger worms and red wiggler worms, are a species of earthworm adapted to decaying organic material. They thrive in rotting vegetation, compost, and manure; they are epigeal. They are rarely found in soil, instead like Lumbricus rubellus they prefer conditions where other worms cannot survive. They are used for vermicomposting. They are native to Europe, but have been introduced (both intentionally and unintentionally) to every other continent except Antarctica, occasionally threatening native species. Established ecosystems have developed their own natural balance and controls over time, and the plants and animals within those systems find this balance suitable for survival, or they have been able to adapt in order to survive within those conditions. When non-native species from other ecosystems are introduced, they can upset that balance and bring harm to the established plants and animals, and the whole ecosystem. Non-native species come from somewhere else and they are not natural to the ecosystem they have been introduced to. They may be harmless and beneficial in their natural surroundings, but they can totally devastate different environments. When alien species enter into an ecosystem, they can disrupt the natural balance, reduce biodiversity, degrade habitats, alter native genetic diversity, transmit exotic diseases to native species, and further jeopardize endangered plants and animals. When there are no established natural controls, such as predators to keep the non-native harmful species in check, there can be a population explosion of the invasive non-native species causing an ecological catastrophe. http://www.eco-pros.com/invasive_non-native_species.htm Here is a link that might be useful: INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECIES

Likely only talking to myself here in this old thread, so here goes anyway: amazondk, I do note much nuanced thought in your writings and I applaud that, but a few discrepancies have easily been spotted. First, way back up yonder, you speak of the methodology of a "sustainable" harvest, whereby only trees of large size are removed, the rest being left to grow on. Well, many decades ago here in the US, this was recognized for the mistake it is, and is known as high-grading. It can amount to the systematic removal of a given stand's best genetics for profit, leaving the weaker and less vigorous stems behind. Then, you also speak of how in the US PNW, there is so much replanting post harvest. Sure, sure, but it's all one species, so where you had doug fir, w. hemlock, w. red cedar, perhaps grand fir, etc. you now have just doug fir. That's hardly environmentally wise and is certainly not preserving the previous forest genetics. Also, in speaking of, for example, ipe's rapid growth, you do not mention that it is precisely the huge expanse of time which has allowed that and other species' gradually slowing growth rate (As they near maturity) that allows for such high-quality product. Finally, you repeat the long-discredited notion that it is young forests which are sequestering the most carbon. This erroneous thought came about when researchers initially only measured height increment in determining overall use and hence, sequestration of carbon. In fact, the old-growth tree is still, by dint of its immense overall size, still growing "faster" than the young pup, its growth simply being spread all over its many growing points. I learned that 20 years ago. All that said, I do certainly agree with some of your other points. For the best example, the often erroneous portrayal of a logged-out stand as a ruined one. If that's the case, I sure do wonder where all this great woodland here in Wisconsin came from! We supplied half the country with the wood to build this nation, in the case of a little town called Chicago, twice! Yes, nature is resilient and it can bounce back impressively. It is too bad though that your buddy seems to only want to hurl names and stereotypes around in this thread. Everybody else had reasonable things to contribute.