Without proof I believe it is day length during the spring or the late part of the season. For those who really want to work with those flowers for hybridizing could set up lights at either or both periods. I would begin as soon as days begin to be shorter. It doesn't take a lot of light to change daylength, one study worked on plants under streetlights. Streetlights are not enough light to effect growth but it does change signals plants use. Set up plants with 14hr daylength beginning at the summer solstice or start with long days in early spring and stop after the solstice. Many growers have attempted to bring plants indoors in the fall but that doesn't change daylength.

Westy, Praying Hands is what I thought of when I read the header on this thread, And then Elvis Lives!! Didnt someone see him in a Burger King a couple of years ago? Yes some names do turn me off too. the outhouse one would be a third , I really hate PIT toilets, reminds me of camping (when a child) and was always afraid of falling in. and then there is the X files, where this thing ends up in a porta john? YUCK!! Who in there right mind gets any delight once they step in an outhouse (unless they just ate a WHOLE pot of chilli)! and the smell just about knocks you over!! Paul am sure there are a couple more but cant think of any at the moment. I dont mind hosta named after people, so many other plants are named like that too. I think that POOR Frances is feeling kinda sore as he (or she) is burning up in my back yard!! (thanks Lainey)

Why I'm not impressed by numbers stats when viewed in perspective: GM offers 48 models in the US; Toyota offers 16. If GM doesn't outsell Toyota, they're even more pathetic than I thought. Ford outselling Honda is not a surprise. Honda is a very small mfg in Japan, hardly anyone drives one. The company long ago made the decision to concentrate on the US market: they were one of the first to introduce models that were US-designed and aimed solely for export, such as the Accord and the entire Acura line. JD Powers survey is INITIAL car quality (first 30 days only). It has nothing to do with reliability. The reliability of US cars has improved, but they still lag behind the Japanese. Depending upon where you live, you may indeed find a Toyota or Honda shop full - because their dealer/repair network is much smaller than the Big 3, so they tend to concentrate where the sales are. IOW, the coastal areas, especially in the West, you have no problem finding repair shops who will take you quickly. In our experience, we've had far more trouble with the 1996 Buick Regal than with any of the Fords we've owned over the last 30 yrs, including the original Escort, the original Contour, and a 1995 Taurus. Our 2003 Hyundai has been almost trouble-free, and the few minor things (door lock failed, seat cushion got stuck and wouldn't fold down) were quickly fixed by cheerful service reps or covered under the extended warranty we purchased. If I had more money to burn, I'd go back to Acura, because our old Integra was the most fun to drive with fabulous Recaro-like seats - but the Hyundai has been a great compact SUV and reliable performer. Plus, it came, as Hondas/Acuras do, with virtually everything on the mid-level model: tinted glass, intermittent wiper, air conditioning, luggage rack, an outrageously good stereo system, etc. etc. The only option I purchased was ABS with traction control, a necessity for a 3800-lb. vehicle - all of which came in well under $20K. Neither the Honda CRV, the Toyota RAV4, nor the Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute could be purchased for anywhere near that price. I'd judge the Hyundai and the Ford to be equal in quality, but Hyundai wins on features for equal price. We plan to replace the Regal next year - we always keep two cars. I'd love half a dozen different cars, ranging from a Mini-S to an Acura MDX to (should I suddenly win the lottery) a Bentley Continental GT. But in terms of return for the money, the best bet will be a used 2005/6 Ford Taurus, when reliability was fairly high and of course, resale-wise it's a steal because nobody wants one any longer. Plus, they don't sell well in San Francisco because the car's simply too big to park anywhere; garages are at a premium around here. I have test-driven the Focus and really like it, but let's face it, a V4 just does not have the pep and durability of the standard Detroit V6. Living in the hills and possessing a "lead foot" makes a V6 the minimum to keep me happy.

Windy.....here is some basic info on expanded shale that I stole from an old Gardenweb thread. In my pots I use basically a cup and a half of it per 2 cups of potting soil. I use a raised bed blend. I just started using it last year so the jury is still out, but the difference in the drainage and the stopping of the overly wet "mush" is clearly evident: Expanded shale is like "Vermiculite plus"--it is, as I understand it, "popcorned" shale rock. Please realize that vermiculite is expanded, or "popcorned", mica. Mica is naturally a rock made of many fine layers--all fragile and glassy (silica rock is, basically, glass--so you have whisper-thin layers of glass puffed out, mostly apart). When expanded, mica forms a very fragile accordian shape that holds a lot of moisture--and usually some air. The air is needed to keep roots from drowning--they have to breathe, too! Alas, mica breaks down quickly into tiny blobs that can form a gray mass of blech -- say, if used at the bottom of a container. Even if the blobs are evenly distributed in your dirt-free soil mix, they still won't hold air anymore--and don't hold much water. Blobby mica is not a sterling aid to roots anymore. Solution? Add more vermiculite (at an annual cost), try another product/substance/method, or move to expanded shale. Unlike mica (which expands into a fragile accordian shape to make vermiculite), shale starts as a roundish rock. Expanded shale retains a smooth rocky appearance--just larger. (Think of corn expanding into hominy--still a distinct shape, but bulkier.) What is so wonderful about expanded shale? Expanded shale *always* retains 30% air. Even if you dump it into a bucket of water, the stuff still retains 30% air (in normal environmental conditions). This means your plants' roots always have access to air, so they are pretty much drown-proofed. Texas A&M tested solid clay soil, in a ground-level bed, with moisture-sensitive plants. Solid clay soil slew the poor test plants rapidly (as anyone with clay soil already knew.....) The plants in the bed with expanded shale survived and *thrived*--that 30% air pocket content saved them. Naturally, the 70% water pocket content provides needed moisture to plants, even in challenging conditions like raised beds/containers in 110+ degree F summers. (Probably great for vacation survival for houseplants, too. Also for people with "blue thumbs" who overwater everything....) Expanded shale is easy to use. It is useless to put a layer of expanded shale in the bottom of a container--just mix it evenly in the soil. The A&M experiment was 50% clay, 50% expanded shale. Your good compost/coir (or peat, or varied, aged compost only) soil mix will not need that much shale. Unlike the water absorbing gels, expanded shale will never swell or shrink, so you don't have to worry about the soil (and plants) heaving up or collapsing. Expanded shale weighs more like lava rock than vermiculite--and has the same ability as lava rock to remain intact for many years (centuries? millenia?) at a moderate initial investment.