Most all the minor spring bulbs will grow under deciduous trees and they will be much easier to plant if there are a lot of roots under the Maple tree. These bulbs get enough sunlight before the trees leaf out to be happy. Using minor bulbs will also increase the length of your bulb season as many of them bloom before a lot of daffodils and tulips. I have Scilla Siberica, Anemone Blanda, Chionodoxa, Fritillaria meleagris, & Ipheions (along with a nice collection of various miniature daffodils (regular daffs already suggested by Daisy will work too) growing under the very dense shade of a low-growing Crabapple tree. BTW, my tree is right up next to the patio, so seeing little bulbs is no problem. If yours are to be seen from a distance, I would use the minor bulbs as low sheets of color under the tree & probably use the large daffs, if I wanted daffs as well. One thing to remember is that it takes a lot of minor bulbs for impact from a distance. Think in hundreds not tens, but they are very inexpensive & you can add a few of the 100-packs (don't worry - these are very easy & quick to plant) each year of this or that to get the effect you want. Most of them spread well also, some even too fast, especially if you have sandy soil. Please see my pictures of some of these minor bulbs in the posting by Trowelgal on this page about planting with sedums. All of these minor bulbs should be available from places like Brent & Becky's Bulbs & John Scheepers. I attached a link to Scheepers, which has some lovely pictures of various varieties. Fritillaria meleagris - this one likes a bit of damp, which might be a problem under a Maple tree, but really lovely and spreads very well for me. Might be worth a try. The white ones pop out the more purplish color of the others & I love the checkering. P. S. These are also taller than the mini daffs. Miniature daffodils - I bought two mixed packages of 50 minis each which have spread generously. I now have two large patches, each with various small daffodils blooming at different times of the season, which is nice. Here is a link that might be useful: John Scheepers

I'd agree that based on just a plant list with assigned prices, it is difficult to tell how you are being charged and whether that is reasonable for the work being done. From my experience on the professional side of the business, this is not a typical way to present a bid and personally I'd shy away from that type of presentation. On the surface, it appears the prices per plant are excessive (here, even select cultivars of daylilies wholesale for around $5 per 1 gallon pot, grasses generally quite a bit less) and I'd never consider paying anywhere close to $237 retail for a 10 gallon juniper. But plant prices do vary by region and this may be more inline with your area than it is in mine. And as stated previously, there may be amendments and labor expenses written in that are not obvious. To me, this just seems an awkward way of going about a bid. I'd rather see a breakdown by estimated labor hours with a detailed listing of the work being done, a cost for total hard materials and amendments and another for plant material. And a one year plant replacement guarantee is pretty standard in the industry.

I like his quote, which I am sure we all here get this: "Good gardens demand a lot of research and patience. Along the way there will be amendments, detours and, sometimes, reversals. There's no such thing as a beautiful 'instant' garden." I wish I had said that because I have thought all that, maybe not in sequence and maybe not that way and maybe not all in the same year, but I have and I mean it.

Fly, Jane's been doing the "populist" thing for quite some time now. She handed over day-to-day control of the research at Gombe a long time ago and started working the public and the politicians. I worked for her about 10 years ago for a while and she never spent more than a few days in any one location (aside from a couple of weeks at Gombe and a couple of weeks in England with her mother here and there) - - she constantly traveled the world trying to spread her messages of conservation, animal rights and public service. I don't know if she is still keeping up that strenuous schedule but I wouldn't doubt it. Lena and others: I agree that Steve was more effective at reaching the masses, and this was largely because of the thrill of watching him in dangerous situations. However, I'm not convinced of the relative benefits of his educational message. OK, so he convinced people in their living rooms around the world that crocodiles should not be eradicated. But does it matter a whole lot whether someone in Ohio believes that? Isn't it more important to make a local impact in that respect? I know, he did that as well (at least with respect to crocodiles), but IMO he could have done so without jumping all over them on t.v. just for the showmanship of it. In the beginning, didn't his show focus on actually being sent out to catch and relocate dangerous animals? Now that I can understand, because he's actually benefitting the animal in the end. But catching them just to show off for cameras reflects a certain lack of respect for the animal IMO. For me, it's a question of quality over quantity. He may have reached more people, but I don't think the message he carried had the anywhere near the level of respect for the natural world that other naturalists are actively trying to cultivate. Furthermore, adding a "do as I say, not as I do" caveat to his exploits did not, IMO, counteract the implicit message that tough guys mess with dangerous animals. If you've ever been to Yellowstone or somewhere like it, you saw that there was always one (or more) in a crowd who had to push the limits, getting foolishly close to the animals. This put the animal in a bad situation as well as the other observers. While people did this before Steve's show came out, I doubt it could be said that his actions did anything to discourage this type of behavior.