I believe flowerfan is correct :-) That was my first thought when I saw this post this morning but just couldn't get past the bloom time. Atragenes are early spring bloomers, generally in flower in my area in April - the "profuse" blooming in July and August confused me. However, both macropetalas and alpinas can offer a late season rebloom......I have macropetala 'Purple Spider' in bloon right now, although I'd not necessarily call it "profuse", certainly not compared to the spring bloom. I think it's possible the initial bloom cycle was somehow overlooked, or alternately, the plant was pruned back too late in the season and it took this long for this season's growth to ripen enough to produce flowers. FWIW, it looks a lot to me like alpina 'Willy', which is this same pale pinky-mauve color.

I have definitely seen cats that are in heat AND pregnant. In fact that was my most fun diagnosis while on my emergency rotation. Dad and his 9 year old daughter brought in their cat because they thought she was in pain. She was in heat and VERY pregnant. Saved them an exam by the clinician and therefore $115. They were relieved that kitty wasn't deathly ill as they had thought, but very concerned about what to do about the pregnancy. Turns out, kitty took decisions out of their hands by having 4 kittens 2 days later (Dad let me know that I was right about the pregnancy and in heat diagnosis, since it was not confirmed by the ER clinician). I'm not sure at what stage in gestation I can palpate pregnancy in a cat. The couple of pregnant cats I've seen have been very pregnant, so it was almost a moot point even palpating them. I am volunteering for operation catnip tomorrow so hopefully I'll get an opportunity to palpate some of the females. I'm on the neuter table though, and it tends to be quite the assembly line; I'll probably neuter 20 cats in 4 hours myself if they can keep cats in front of me the whole time (usually I'm too fast for the PE/anesthesia line) and they'll be 3 other students on the neuter table with me. Groomingal-I have never worked for a vet that didn't personally do a physical exam prior to surgery. One vet I worked for accidently tried to spay a male cat until further investigation (in his defense the cat did look female). But they always do a PE prior to all surgeries. And we do euthanize viable litters. It is cruel just to allow them to die because they suffocate slowly. I absolutely agree that if the pregnancy is found prior to surgery, the owner should be called and given their options, and that is what the vets I have worked for have always done. That said, we don't do spays or neuters without a prior PE with the owner present, so that situation doesn't occur often. In other words, a client can't just drop off a patient we have never seen before for surgery- they have to be present for the initial exam in case something comes up, like a heart murmur or pregnancy or whatever. I don't know if my new job will have that as a hospital policy, but you can bet that I'll be doing PEs prior to surgery of any kind.

except increased risk of COPD, allergies, etc. Those are risks to health. Especially that "etc."!! :-)" The point is this was not from incidental exposure, it was from prolonged exposure to a spouse who lived with a smoker for many decades, but this is not what people have been led to believe about passive smoking. "According to the 2014 Surgeon General’s Report, there have been more than 20 million smoking-related deaths in the United States since 1964; 2.5 million of those deaths were among non-smokers who died from exposure to secondhand smoke. " this is just based on flawed logic though.When you blame someone's death on something just because they were exposed to it during their life, then the results are obviously going to be biased and unreliable. (There is no known test to determine if someone died from secondhand smoke.) So when someone gets lung cancer and they have never smoked, it must be passive smoking all of a sudden. From memory it was a surgeon general back in the 50s or 60s who originally fabricated the notion of passive smoking in the first place and put the concept to the anti smoking lobby at a conference as a way to change public attitudes against smoking. It did what it was supposed to do, create social pressure against smoking which made the anti smoking lobby's job a whole lot easier but it wasn't based on science. It was easy when a significant part of the population smoked to put the blame on a persons smoking for certain diseases, but since smoking rates have dropped significantly over the years they need to find a new way to explain these so now we are expected to believe that exposure to some past passive smoking is the cause. Why is passive exhaust fume inhalation never mentioned as the cause? You are probably inhaling more toxins in one traffic jam than a life time of passive smoking, yet we are supposed to believe passive smoking is killing lots of people and other risk factors are just never mentioned? It would certainly explain the discrepancy in why many long time smokers never get lung cancer and why some non smokers do, the real cause may be independent of smoking altogether, or smoking could be a secondary risk factor. What about those of us who grew up when leaded petrol was standard? How many of these active or passive smoking deaths were really caused by inhaling that really dirty fuel exhaust we were breathing in from old cars that didn't have emission controls? The real issue isn't about smoking, it is about the amount of flawed "science" out there, researchers are likely designing flawed studies, or collecting information and interpreting it in a flawed way to a predetermined outcome or cherrypicking results, since they don't want to jeopardise their funding. How many times has one study told us one thing, only to be contradicted a few years later by another study? Even in recent years we've been led to believe that genetic testing is going to tell us if we are at risk of certain diseases or not, but if you read the story in the op, even that is flawed and perhaps as pointless as some other science being palmed off as something definitive. Roninsouthga is right, we need to do our research and not just passively accept being spoon fed the nonsensical garbage we often get fed, especially when "research" can be used by business to really increase profits when the results are favourable for them, and when they are directly or indirectly funding research, the results will likely get skewed in their favour (or buried if there is no way to make that happen). "but there are too many variables in life for medical science to ever make the concrete determinations that you seem to want, trancegemini " But graywings, if science can't give me concrete determinations what good does it do for me, or anyone? I can guess or make assumptions on my own observations, I don't need medical science to do that and if they can't give the public solid irrefutable evidence of their findings rather than guesswork or agenda driven information then what they are doing is pretty pointless IMO and why I think much of the information we get is dubious.

If you specify stone balustrade or concrete balustrade, that may also help narrow the options.