Please check this list of everything I have, and let me know if you're interested in any if it. I do have photos of most. http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/exseed/msg1113040224813.html You have lots of tomatos I'd like to try! Thanks!

Rita, your bed looks very pretty and healthy. I am very pleased with my Heirloom bands this year. Last year or the year before - I was not. There was a post a couple of weeks ago on the subject of Heirloom bands and I posted a picture of my little thriving pots. Here they are a couple of weeks later, still doing wonderfully: The only one that is doing less than spectacularly is Welsh Gold; it's a little sluggish so far. Some of these are Clement's intros: Desiree Magnificent Perfume Distant Thunder Sunrise at Heirloom and I have a Will O' The Wisp that I got last year and it is finally getting some size to it. Do you have any of these and if you do, how are they doing for you? Lynn

I don't agree Rosefolly. VID or VI are terms, I believe, for roses indexed at UC Davis. The Florida Southern program does not use that terminology (according to what Malcolm Manners has posted on the web). There is at least one other program that does testing at least (is it Washington State??? I forget). Do they use the VI or VID labeling? Also, if a nursery has all their roses indexed, does that mean each rose must have an individual indicator label on it? And if so, why should they use Davis' terminology if the rose didn't go through the Davis system? Pickering virus indexes their roses but they have no VI or VID shown on individual plants in their online catalog. What about nurseries that received plants from more than one virus treatment program? List the Davis-sourced ones with VI and what then for the others? What about nurseries that didn't get some treated and/or indexed roses direct from the organization that had the program? Should these indirect sources be trusted that the rose really did go through a particular system (not necessarily which one is even listed as is the case sometimes with Vintage)??? But as to what you've received, with virus symptoms from Heirloom, I would ask you which rose (s) was it? And secondly when (what year approximatley)? I think this matters and is actually important to know. Was it last year, 5 years ago, 20 years ago or? Heirloom was beginning their rose mosaic virus program back in the early 1990s, and what they were doing was right there described in their catalog. Just like with any company that has a warranty on a product, that doesn't mean that the product can never have a problem, what is important is what the company does about the failures, not only as to a replacement, but also how they work to prevent them in the future. I give high marks to companies that make the effort to improve their products, and also to those that disclose how they are doing so. Heirloom I feel should be praised for taking on a huge task (with so many US roses infected with rmv), at no doubt considerable expense, when many others chose to do little or nothing (even when the market was booming). That means that various rose nurseries let places like Heirloom do the heavy lifting and bear the burden of cost of testing/treatment, while they could sit back and rest on their laurels. I think it is really unfair to criticize a business that has actively sought to produce only rose mosaic free roses when this criticism benefits the nurseries that didn't help. I have to wonder if more nurseries had a policy, decades ago, such as Heirloom's that many more roses would now be in commerce rose mosaic virus free. There could have been cooperation with one nursery testing/treating a particular rose or roses and another nursery doing others. I think if this had happened, the rose-growing public would have benefitted and become more educated. I think there would be less acceptance of virused roses and in general healthier, longer-lived roses on the market. As we've heard, from Malcolm Manners and others, roses that are clear of rmv perform better than those that are infected. How much of the difficulty in various parts of the country have gardeners had because they've bought virused roses and then been disappointed at the lack of vigor or extra care required? What about replacements needed? If sickly roses are the starting point, will people continue to buy a faulty product? Just IMHO but I think the lack of wide scale participation of rose nurseries in rmv programs has been a contributing factor in the loss of popularity of the rose as a garden plant. Melissa

I don't think your mystery iris are Flavescens or Eldorado, though they look similar. The lavender one has form that looks to me like a newer iris than Eldorado, maybe 1920s or 30s instead of 1910s. The lighter colored one is definitely an oldie, though not necessarily as old as Flavescens - could be anything up to the 1910s. Sorry, I don't have alternative name suggestions, but thanks for preserving older iris, even if you haven't figured out who they are yet!