Telomers in the cells shorten as the cell ages. This is so for animals and humans as I know. But is this so for plants also? That's a very good question. I have never read or heard of anyone researching this, but I'd be surprised if no one has. One of the largest single differences between animals and flowering plants (& possibly sporulating ones, but I don't know enough plant physiology to know if it applies to them as well, and I'm speculating about this since I haven't taken a plant physiology course in 30 years & haven't ever studied plant cellular physiology in detail) is the way in which they age and are capable of reproducing. There's a big difference between a (flowering) plant's ability to reproduce itself asexually and a mammal's ability to do that. If I recall correctly that ability in mammals and many or most other veterbrate taxa is just about zero (identical twins excepted). Meanwhile among some cultivated plants there are cultivars that have been around for literally centuries and are still very widespread now. The Kurume hybrid azalea "coral bells" comes to my mind immediately. It's extremely widespread in parts of the USA (including the Northeast) and still very widely available in commerce right now, yet in Japan it's known as "", and it was bred all the way back in the 1600's, with no sign of its changing much or losing any of its growth characters! (It's growing on the property where I live now, ten miles north of Boston as I write this, but I'm very close to the northern edge of what it will tolerate. The winter here can be very brutal on its leaves.) If its telomeres functioned the way a mammal's telomeres did I can only think that by now it would no longer exist, yet it does, and it's constantly asexually propagated, and must be so millions of times per year (based upon the number of cuttings I took of it yearly at a small azalea production nursery back in the 1980's). How many times have own-root species rose clones been asexually propagated with no loss of vigor?

One thing to keep in mind about 'Edgar Degas' not being available until 2018 is that if its patent began when it was introduced in 1997 -- and it lasts 20 years -- that may be why Linda won't be making it available until then, since she can't begin to propagate it without paying royalties until 2017. I don't have much to add, since all the nurseries I've used have been mentioned. I will say that I do have them ranked in terms of whom I ask first when seeking particular roses: Long Ago Roses and Burlington Roses get asked first, because of high quality and very reasonable prices. If they don't have what I want, then I check Rose Petals Nursery or Angel Gardens. These two are also top-notch, but cost including shipping is a bit higher, though not much. These two also tend to specialize in what grows well for them in Florida, so don't expect much in the way of once-blooming old Europeans, though there are a few tucked in. For those cold-hardy oldies, I check High Country Roses. They also have a few hard-to-find species. If there's still something I can't find, I check Rogue Valley Roses or Roses Unlimited. RVR has an amazing selection, but their bands are at the higher end of the spectrum. Also expect about 10% or so to come mislabeled, but my experience is that 1) it's usually nearby alphabetically, so you sometimes end up with something you didn't know you wanted, and 2) if you do need a replacement, emailing some pics and calling the office will get the mistake corrected. RU also has a great selection, but they lean more toward the moderns than does RVR. But they also send hefty 1gal plants. This also means shipping is a bit more if you're not on the east coast, but it's not that bad since I'm in NJ. If I need something with faster impact, I go with RU. If I don't mind nursing something along, I go with RVR. I haven't mentioned Heirloom because I haven't ordered from them since the company changed hands. I will say that they're going more in the direction of modern roses, and the few remaining oldies I can easily find elsewhere. So it's not that I ever had a problem with their roses -- it's just that there isn't as much that they have which catches my eye. But I wouldn't hesitate to order from them should that change. :-) ~Christopher

I'd go with same color too. Our future country house is light yellow with white trim. I am planning to grow Pretty in Pink Eden on 3 sides of one house. I love this hot pink climber, the blooms are big and long lasting, plus it repeats good. I have 6 PIPE in my garden now, will move 3 to the countryside, hope to find more before the fall. I am testing out two Kiss Me Kate climber, hope they're good repeaters. I want to plant these 2 roses together so I'd get more repeat blooms during the short growing season......

Hi Daviedearest - some of our answer to your question depends on where you are. A climber in California will get a whole lot bigger than one in Nebraska so that can determine how far away you can plant it. In general, the answer in my zone would be "yes" it's fine to plant two roses on a LARGE arbor, particularly if one is a mini. It may be that the mini isn't actually climbing but just wants to be in the ground to settle in. Mini just refers to the size of the flowers, and there are indeed mini climbers, but most potted mini roses are sold for gifts and they tend to be roses that stay small. If you're talking about a trellis or small obelisk, the answer would change, since some roses can overwhelm those smaller supports in warm zones. Cynthia