I second Bay Laurel Nursery, Another further North is Hometown Nursery in Paso Robles on Spring St, then there is Treeman in Templeton, If you're into herbs, on 46 west there is Sycamore Farms in Paso Robles, I don't know what they have, their barn burned down a couple years ago. On 1 there is Grow Nursery, on the north end of Cambria. Which if you took 1 down to 46 across, you could hit all the nurseries in Paso Robles, Templeton, then Atascadero, Santa Margarita, and sweep down to SLO and further south. Over the Grade there is Ron's Nursery In Arroyo Grande, it's got the quality of plants you'd find in a floral shop. It's on thirteenth street. There is also Oceano Nursery, which is more interesting, it has lots of stuff to look at, but it is more junk yard retro, than upscale.

"Roughly speaking, how much of the flora is unable to grow on the West Coast?" Seems like it's usually more like what won't grow here? (Often with bad consequences, in the case of invasives.) For instance, my mother is endlessly frustrated by my interest in native plants (she is in New Mexico), as she says "You can grow ANYTHING there and you plant plain old Apricot Mallow???!" lol. Of course, I still have a lemon tree, orange tree, palm tree, tea tree, orchid tree, hibiscus, hydrangea, avocado etc....Full disclosure: I am a newbie and just got some actual dirt a year ago - but it has been amazing to learn about this amazing climate - which is Mediterranean btw. Often I wish there was a California version of every forum here - particularly veggies, since our planting times are totally different. Some books I like: Mediterranean Kitchen Garden: Growing Organic Fruit and Vegetables in a Hot, Dry Climate by Mariano Bueno, Pat Welsh's Southern California Gardening, and California Native Plants for the Garden by Carol Bornstein et al. The Sunset Bible is also on my shelf. The micro-climate is crucial - I am in East LA and have a totally different zone than you will in Santa Monica. One thing that I'll add to look into for native plants is the Theodore Payne Foundation which is local - it's really a neat non-profit nursery and educational resource.

Well, hello cactusjordi! I have owned 4 different C. peculiaris now. One that I planted out in a succulent bowl (that I got from a wonderful San Diego chap), the one in the picture here, and two others. Of the 4, my first one (the one bought in San Diego) did not like the hot humid and wet summer. RIP :-( So bummed. It struggled at first then was getting stronger then this. Does not like water and heat when it is dormant. The one that I purchased shown in the original post here....I have no clue...must have croaked too. Brain is really going. But it did bloom and give me seed. The last two that I got over a year and a half ago made it through this past crazy summer. These were more protected so I guess that helped. I ran out as the sun had already set tonight and took a few shots. So there you have it. Some successes and some failures. I know now where to keep them best in my garden. I have no greenhouse or protected area. Mother nature dictates. Yours look great cactusjordy! ewwmayo - I'm pretty sure that cactusjordy is completely reliant on Mother nature. They are outside under the cover of other plants. Water....when it falls from the sky...that's it.

Robert: The narrow strip on unlogged trees along Redwood creek was left to provide access to what were then thought to be the tallest trees in the world. A big section of logged over land surrounding the "worm" was added to the park with the park expansion bill. I was one of two lobbyists for the Sierra club working to make sure our Senators and Congressmen had the right information and would support the bill. It is a shame that that land, and even more, was not included in the original park, which really did not preserve that much additional old growth redwood forest. By this time much of the Bull creek watershed has recovered somewhat--the cutting there was done close to 60 years ago. As for the incorrect measurement of the "Mother of the Forest Tree": As a percent of the total height, the amount of error is not that uncommon. The most frequent error, is what I noted in my discussion above--the top of the tree, or a point sighted as the top, was closer to the observer than a point directly above the base of the tree. So, when the angle for computing the height was read, the clinometer gave an angle steeper than the true angle would be. The problem occurs because the measurement to the base of the tree was made separately from the measurement of the angle. For these calculations, whether for the ENTS method, or the previous method, a right triangle is assumed, but unless the top sighted is directly over the base, no right triangle actually exists for the calculations, leading to distorted results. The ENTS method assumes TWO right triangles, and measures two distances and two angles, and then combines. So whether the tree leans, or whether the top is directly over the base, is not an issue. But this method, using the convenience of the laser rangefinder, is, after all, much easier and faster. The difficulty is finding a good window to the top, and judging what the true top is, especially when sightlines are difficult and the crown of the tree is broad and/or complex. When no good window can be found--if the tree is very special--it will be climbed, and a tape dropped. Now this is really difficult and takes both climbing AND measuring expertise. And one or two additional people. With the ENTS "sine top, sine base," the angle and the height are measured on the same sight line. The assumed right triangle always--and of necessity--always exists for the calculations. If an error occurs, it is usually to underestimate the height. This would happen when something other than the true top is sighted. The ENTS method will give a true height of whatever twig is sighted, whether the top or not. Note that Will Blozan, when he measured the tree, moved 600 feet away to ensure that from his angle--from far away--he could sight the true top. And, because the distance and angle are measured along the same line and from the same point, the issue of whether the top is perfectly over the base is not an issue. The base is measured the same way as the top, and the height added or subtracted, as the case may be. What may have happened with the "Mother" tree, is either someone did not have enough patience to try to find a visual "window" for sighting the true top of the tree.--so if he stood too close to the tree, allowing him to sight some twig that was more to the side of the crown towards himself rather than at the absolute top, and that twig were a relatively small distance closer to the observer than the base of the tree, whether it were the true top or not, a large overestimation of the height could occur. Or, if the true top was sighted, but that top were closer to the observer than a point directly over the base, that would lead to the same kind of error. Of course, errors could occur in measuring the distance to the trunk, even it the top were directly over the base. Of course, people using the ENTS method can make errors, but any error will not occur simply because it is built into the methodology, as has been the case with the method commonly applied previously. Want to have some fun: get some equipment and start measuring. The now discontinued Nikon 440 rangefinder is perhaps the most preferred rangefinder because it has a narrow laser beam that can pass through narrow openings without giving a false echo from surrounding clutter. Used ones usually available on e-bay, often for between $100 and $150. I also use a basic Suunto clinometer and $13 scientific calculator. If I can sight the top and the base without too much searching, I can get readings, punch in the numbers and get a tree height in maybe as little as two minutes. --Spruce