I'm more than willing to concede a lot of points in this discussion. I'm sure Linda knows a whole lot more than I about what it takes to bring along an attractive AV. I readily admit that stressing the plant by keeping it root bound is almost certainly the preferred method of ensuring an attractive plant with lots of blooms. My experience with AVs is limited to 2 plants I bought in the fall, stuck in the gritty mix, over-wintered under lights, and fed with a fertilizer that drives its N from urea. I have no interest in AVs, the only reason I grew the two as I did is because I was assured it wouldn't work. Half way through the following summer I gave the plants away because I'd proven the point & had already lost interest. My inexperience might place me well below expert status on the ladder to AV growing stardom, but that doesn't mean I'm fresh off the boat when it comes to plant physiology. I understand how plants grow and what impedes growth. I have a very scientific mind, but if what I think I'm observing doesn't square with what I know of science, the first thing I reject is my own observations. It should be no surprise that I'm equally willing to reject someone else's observation as well, when it doesn't square with science. We are getting a lot of other issues confused with growth. Growth isn't looking pretty and having a maximum number of blooms, and a thriving plant by one grower's standards could still be missing out on a good deal of growth potential. I'm perfectly willing to concede that a better LOOKING plant is possible if it's grown tight. There is only 1 area of disagreement, and that is whether tight roots promote faster growth in any plant, but specifically Gesneriads. There is no scientific reason to believe that Gesneriads are unique among plants, regardless of what one person or 20 thinks when there are thousands on thousands of plants whose growth is negatively affected by root congestion. There are MANY growers like Alavoneluvhoya who feel their plants seem to grow better when root-bound, and are readily willing to attribute the better health to that condition - even in the face of the fact we KNOW tight roots retard growth. Please consider the more plausible explanation is, with the soil she is using, growing the plant tight may be necessary to prevent the root problems associated with the soil she is using. Tight roots means that favorable volumes of air return to the soil faster after a thorough watering - which eases the limitations imposed by the poor soil. Because the soil problem is eased by tight roots doesn't necessarily mean tight roots are desirable. They are STILL limiting, just not as limiting as the soggy soil's effect on root function. If you feel your plants grow better when root bound, you probably need to take a close look at what they are growing in. There is no need to trade one limitation for another in an attempt to improve growth. This doesn't mean you still can't be happy with a plant growing under limitations. ALL our plants are suffering some limitation, no matter how hard we try. What's important is knowing how to look at the problem and not so readily jump to post hoc conclusions or confuse coincidental relationships with causes. "I have a nice looking plant that is 10 feet tall with lots of blooms in a 6" container, therefore the plant likes being root bound" is exactly the same logic as, "I TRIED to grow a 10 foot tall plant with lots of blooms in a 6" container but it died before it got 2' tall, therefore 6" pots kill plants." Neither are logically valid. No one is trying to take away the tool of keeping plants root bound to get them to bend to your will. The only contention is that tight roots slow growth in all plants. In containerized plants, if you're vigilant, you can really start to note the slow down at about the point where the root/soil mass can be lifted from the container intact. Most of what I just offered is contained in a post I wrote back in '10 (see below). You might find Steve Lucas's comment offered on 9/3/10, as well as the rest of the commentary to be of interest ...... the text too, of course. ;-). Al Here is a link that might be useful: More here

This is really fascinating stuff. I looked up colchocine and while it's typically used to treat gout, there are folk in the plant research area that are using it to create chlorophyll mutations, which I suppose is where the variegation comes in to play. It would be curious to find out if that's where some other non-species type variegated plants are coming from. Interest, really interesting. That also means (to me) that it's perfectly acceptable to create a hybrid whose total is greater than (or possibly less than) than the sum of the "named" parents. What I mean by this is that in it's (the hybrid's) current form, it's DNA would not match exactly those of the parents cuz someone mucked with it! Therefore, my next question, though somewhat philosophical-but also serious-is: what's the difference between hybridizing two NOIDs into a "named" plant, and radically altering the DNA of an offspring of "named" parents? Perhaps because one could possibly repeat the "mucking with DNA" portion of the "named" hybrid, but I will tell you in truth-without extremely sophisticated equipment (mega-software and mega-computing power), it's not that simple and is more like winning the lottery if it works. You might come pretty close, but not necessarily exact. Or perhaps that the "mucked with (MW)" hybrid will yield consistent behavior in physical aspects-and any abnormality would be put down as an environmental issue for a particular plant (and it could be BOTH!). If I were to be a purist in this respect, I'd want DNA evidence that the offspring of the of the MW hybrid exactly matched that of the parent MW. Of course I could digress on what defines the term "exactly" but I'll spare you my engineering rhetoric as you're probably seeing where I'm going with this. Now someone mentioned the name "DuPont" and indeed, they would have such software and computing power-if we're talking about the major chemical manufacturer. But it's still past even the more sophisticated hybridizers (unless they've got an agreement with someone like DuPont). That brings me to the question of how AVSA would know-and what kind of proof they would ask for... But of course, I'll certainly abide by the rules! And maybe later down the road, I'll get some of that colchocine and toss in some radiation to make my own super-hybrid! :-)) What an incredible discussion! Thoughts in my head still meandering- Hoping I'm not offending anyone with this: I really don't mean to. Thanks so much! Best, Judy This post was edited by judyj on Thu, Aug 28, 14 at 21:47

I know this thread is old and inactive but it gave me some ideas and I wanted to share my experience. I planted a punch of seeds (Ipomoea purpurea (mixed) mid/late march. Separated seedlings after they got true leaves into 4 inch pots. after they had 6-8 leaves I put one in a cupboard to cut its light exposure to 10 hours or so for a week to 10 days. Kept another on heating mat for a 4-5 days and/or provided supplemental lighting. One pot was sent outdoors. End of a couple of weeks the one with limited light exposure had buds the rest did not. After another couple of weeks in the south facing window (default location) all were sent out on the balcony where they get 2-3 hours of sun if it's out. The weather has been pretty irregular, 23 one days 10 the next and mostly rainy. The buds on the one are holding up but the cold exposure outside has slowed their development into blooms and wind has been trying hard to kill them. Anyhow, got them back indoors today. None of the others have recognizable buds yet. Will update when the one with buds blooms. Bottom line if one grows in a pot and limit daylight (like for kalanchoe or poinsettia, but not for weeks, just days) to the seedlings, one could get at least Ipomoea purpurea to start blooming early. Whether, the blooms, once initiated, will stop after a while, I am not sure. Will update how this goes. I know this was not a rigorous experiment but take it for what its worth. I started more than a couple of dozen kinds of seeds and this was obviously not top of my list.

Hi Fran, There is definite confusion generated by some companies referring to the kikyo / bell shaped flowers by calling them picotee and this results in people mistaking the color for a shape...there are single and double kikyo,but I am of the opinion that a kikyo should be referred to as a kikyo,either single or double and this would help to eliminate cascading confusion regarding descriptions... There are 2 different types of lavender...blue-lavender and pink-lavender... Regarding any scent from MG's...most people do not check,so the absence of any mention of a scent is not a definitive indication that the flower is lacking a scent... A scented flower is one in which it is usually necessary to place your nose close to the flower in order to detect the aroma...in contrast to a flower which is fragrant where the aroma is detectable from several feet or more from the flower... I am aware of the flower posted to the PlantFiles that you mentioned here http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/153687/ and although I was consulted and I was not in favor of it being entered as a new cultivar into the PlantFiles as I thought it would generate confusion....it was obviously entered into the database despite my perspective against the entry... Here is another bloom http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/77108/ which was offered by an ebay merchant and entered in 'haste'...and you know what haste makes...(!)...Typical Youjiro always have white rays and any bloom that is completely lacking distinct white rays is atypical and any very atypical blooms should not be entered or entered with an obvious notation addressing the atypical coloration...these very atypical entries are examples of 'messes' that are resultantly difficult to get cleaned up... I thought it would be better to present the atypical blooms in threads and discuss them,rather than just go ahead and enter them as new cultivars...but not everyone is interested to work as a cohesive community...and random entering of sports in the long run winds up creating division...through perpetuating mislabeling and fostering duplicative confusion...thinking about how any entry is going to affect the Larger Community is better than being hasty and entering photos into a reference database which many people rely upon for accurate information... I think the MG pollination topic should be in a thread devoted to MG pollination...perhaps entitled "How to hand pollinate Morning Glories"... TTY,... Ron