There is a school of thought that RMV can be spread from an infected plant to a clean one through a "root graft". (IOW, the roots of one plant actually growing into the roots of another.)

Most authorities I've read say that's either impossible, or so improbable as not to warrant a passing thought. Others I've read disagree. But I don't THINK anyone has presented proof that it can happen.

That said -- there's a very good chance your own root plant is also virused. If it was a cutting taken from an infected plant, it is almost-certainly infected.

I seem to have quite a few roses where it shows up sooner or later so I've given up, although the only roses I've lost (other than to drought) have been to canker and not mosaic virus. I believe it was Jeri who said some of hers have survived for quite a few years with that condition. I've read that Austin's roses very often are afflicted with mosaic virus.

The following was stated: " But I don't THINK anyone has presented proof that it can happen."

Title: Evidence of root graft transmission of two rose mosaic viruses, Prunus necrotic ringspot virus and Apple mosaic virus in rose rootstocks

See:

http://www.apsnet.org/meetings/Documents/2011_Meeting_Abstracts/a11ma356.htm

Good info everyone.

Viruses don't seem to really bother my roses that much, at least from my point of view. Probably because of the dry heat here. I know they're affected, but they pump out blooms and that's what matters to me. I have a 50+ year old Chrysler Imperial that's virused and it's still absolutely fabulous. Plus the rose mosaic pattern is honestly kind of pretty, like variegated foliage. I know I should, but I just don't mind virused roses in my yard as long as they still produce blooms.

I never thought it weakened my roses, either...just the rare flare up on some HTs that didn't seem to have any negative effect on them overall...BUT then came Boscobel. Each spring it leafs out with extreme RMV patterning. It is a weak, consistently fungal plagued rose the remainder of each season. I know others have complained of their RMV'd Austins. I wonder if they are more adversely affected by it than other infected roses.

If your rose has one of the temperature sensitive viruses, you may not observe much of an affect if you garden in a hot climate. During most of the year the temperature sensitive immune system should keep the concentration of virus in the above ground parts of the infected rose at or near zero.

Do you just observe visible symptoms in cool weather?

https://sites.google.com/site/temperatureandrosemosaicvirus/home

Pat_bamaz -- I don't think Austins are necessarily more-affected than other roses -- but for an example, we have a 'Golden Celebration' which came from Hortico. Though Multiflora ain't a great rootstock in our conditions, that thing quickly grew to be a monster.

We purchased 3 more, later -- U.S.-grown plants on Dr. Huey rootstock. None of those has reached the size of the original one.

But when one of the three died, we replaced it with a plant grown for a cutting from the Hortico plant. It took that one a while to get going, but it's almost as big as its mother.

You can't really KNOW without testing, but I've always assumed that the Hortico plant was probably virus-free. (And of course the remaining 2 on Huey are virused.)

Thank you for all the great information. I grow several David Austin roses. All of them happen to be grafted on Dr. Huey, because I bought them locally. Mary Rose is the oldest rose I have, having purchased it while my house was still in escrow. I just couldn't wait! All my David Austins show the virus, but none are as affected by it as much as Mary Rose is. Just like Pat's Boscobel, my Mary Rose gets all kinds of fungal diseases. Mine even gets some blackspot, and we don't even GET blackspot around here. She gets lots of yellow leaves that drop off all the time. This goes on year round. As for cold temperatures, I don't get any. A few nights a year it might get around freezing, but even then it's for just a few hours before dawn. She does still bloom very well. I would tolerate the "Mosaic", variegated leaves and just be careful to clean my tools after use, but the sickly foliage I'm over. I did know from Jeri telling me before, that an ownroot Mary Rose will probably also be infected. I was making an order with High Country Gardens and the price was so good, I thought I would give it a shot. I'm actually a little surprised at myself because Mary makes a horrible cut rose. I am hoping that this new Mary will be stronger than the other one. Is there such a thing as "less virused" and "more virused"? Considering that Dr. Huey is a source for a lot of RMV, would taking Dr. Huey out of the equation at least lessen the amount of virus? I'll be curious to see how this Mary compares to the other, as it grows. It doesn't look super likely that the virus will spread by root contact in my case. I think I won't leave the old Mary around too too long after reading Henry's linked article. I also hope the ownroot one will stay a little shorter than the grafted one has. Lisa

I don't know the RMV status of most of my roses -- only a few came with the VI or VID note on their tags -- but I have never seen symptoms of it on any of my roses in my current garden. All my roses are own-root, including some Austins. I do remember seeing it pop up on a couple Austins in my old garden on Long Island. All those roses were on rootstock -- probably 'Dr. Huey', being as they came from the US supplier of Austins. I can't imagine that NONE of my roses here are infected, but I can't tell which ones are or aren't -- aside from the few I know came VI or VID. But I will add some light evidence that, in rather similar climates, my own-root roses don't seem to show the mosaic symptoms I saw briefly back on Long Island. I have no explanation for it, but thought I'd throw in my observation.

From what I understand, the UK Austins come over here as budwood, and are grown on (likely) infected 'Dr. Huey' at the US distributor in Texas. The own-root versions offered by the same distributor are (likely) created by taking cuttings from the budded roses growing out in the fields. Since the UK seems to prefer growing roses on seed-grown rootstock from the outset, this (likely) means that uninfected budwood is sent here, budded onto infected stock, and from there all the US Austins are propagated. That's a shame. I wonder if Palatine and Hortico get their budwood directly from the UK. If so, their Austins may not be infected.

:-)

~Christopher

The following was asked: " Is there such a thing as "less virused" and "more virused"?

H.Kuska comment: there are about 19 different viruses that are known to infect roses. Even within each virus type there can be different forms of that virus that can have more or less infectivity than the other forms. In addition each variety of rose can have a stronger or weaker immune system against a particular virus. Also an individual rose can be infected by more than one type of virus at the same time.

i.e. Nature is complex.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My rose virus information is at:

https://sites.google.com/site/rosevirusindexpage/

My information is due for an update. I have been waiting for the material that was presented at the August 2017 National Roses Clean Plant Meeting :

http://rosebreeders.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=55690

AquaEyes 7a New Jersey Christopher, thee things relevant to your comments . . .

1. I had a 'Reine des Violettes', sourced from Roses Of Yesterday & Today. It was one of the first 3 roses we bought, and it grew here for 20 years. Through that time, it displayed not one single sign of virus (though we knew it had to be there, given the source).

In its 20th winter, we had some very cold temperatures. Many plants in the area were hard-hit. When that RdV leafed out after being pruned, it was covered with the stigmata of virus -- so much so, it looked like a paisley scarf.

Then, it died.

2. I have a 'Bishop Darlington' that's been here 10-15 years. It's an enormous thing, and a bloom factory. ONE time and one time only, it showed virus on ONE leaf.

3. I got a pair of 'The Dark Lady' from Heirloom (under its original ownership). Neither grew well, but the blooms were lovely. In their third year, they burst out with virus. Heirloom didn't believe me, because their mother plant was grown from a cutting taken in Austin's display garden. But when tested, it turned out that their mother plant WAS virused. So, roses can come virused, straight from England.

The following was stated: " But when tested, it turned out that their mother plant WAS virused. So, roses can come virused, straight from England."

H.Kuska comment: or it caught it from another virused rose or virused weed or other plant here in the U.S..

I received a personal message from a well known expert in Rose Mosaic Virus. He did not wish to become involved in a lengthy debate here:) He wrote that while he can't say that that it never COULD happen, it never HAS happened. It hasn't happened in nurseries this way, and it hasn't happened in home gardens. The UC Davis study DID show that the virus can be spread from one plant to another planted VERY closely together, as in inches apart. I am completely satisfied that my second rose won't be affected by the first one.

As for one rose being "more virused" than another? Thank you, Henry for letting me know that their are 19 different viruses. I have a feeling that my particular grafted Mary Rose must be heavily infected with more than one virus, or an especially virulent strain. It shows such mosaic leaves in my warm climate year round, and its immune system is compromised so severely, that it can't fight off anything, even in my dry climate. My hope is that the new ownroot Mary Rose, will be "less infected".

I would have thought David Austin would have taken the steps to rectify this situation when it first came to light. Surely he has the funds to do so? I guess he figures that if everything else is virused, it doesn't matter. I really wonder why it's the grafted David Austins that I SEE the virus in. I know it's in my other roses as well, but only the DA's actually show it in my garden. Lisa

Austin's virus statement:

"Our roses are grown on virus free root stock and inspected regularly throughout the season for the presence of virus. While we cannot guarantee complete freedom from virus, in the very unlikely event of you receiving an imperfect plant, we will, of course, replace them free of charge."

http://www.davidaustinroses.com/us/terms-conditions

I used to judge high school science fairs in the advanced botany category. Year after year students came in with an aquarium with tomato plants in it. They infected the plants with tobacco mosaic virus and then treated them with a vapor of Gibberellic acid and/or oil of wintergreen. When used together, these vapors appear to completely cure the plant of the virus. One student went much MUCH farther with his project to determine which genes were being stimulated in the plants. He found that there were some genes which were apparently dormant under normal circumstances, but when affected by the gibberellic acid and wintergreen, they turned on and fought off the disease. Using one or the other did not stimulate the genes like when both were used.

If this same treatment was to work on roses, then the question becomes, How to do this in the wild and not in a terrarium? A spray of some kind should work, but getting the dose right is the hard part. I've never been around gibberellic acid, but oil of wintergreen is a reasonably harsh material. Anyway you might pursue that approach to a cure.

"I really wonder why it's the grafted David Austins that I SEE the virus in. I know it's in my other roses as well, but only the DA's actually show it in my garden. Lisa"

*** Betcha it's because those roses have a virus that some of your other roses don't.

As for why Austin isn't more exercised about the problem, you should consider that the English/Europeans generally don't seem as concerned about virus as we do. Anyhow, it appears to have originated in the U.S. (We kindly shipped virused plants to Europe.)

So much great and interesting information here! I didn't know DA would replace virus infected plants. I'm sure this doesn't apply to my Mary Rose, because I didn't buy it directly from David Austin. It did have the David Austin tag on it, but I bought it at a local nursery and after 6 years, the receipt is long gone too.

Very interesting about the wintergreen and gibberellic acid, dchall. I've used gibberellic acid to germinate old/difficult seeds, with good success, but had never considered another use for it.

Jeri, I can only hope that this ownroot Mary Rose won't have as many viruses as my old one. I guess time will tell. Lisa

In light of Jeri's comment about her experience with Heirloom Roses, I wonder why they continue to use "Virus free" as part of their advertising? Lisa

Lisa, I suspect that when the current owners bought the business, they were told that the parent stock was all virus-free. There are still many people who believe that own-root roses are by definition virus-free.

When I told John Clements that my Dark Ladies were badly-virused, he refused to believe it. (He could be very choleric, to put it mildly.)

I do give him credit for that he had his mother plant tested. The test confirmed that it was, in fact, virused.

And I give him credit for calling me to tell me. He left a message:

"Hello. This is John Clements. You were right. They're virused." <SLAM!!>
<G>

But he never changed his advertising.

As Lisa mentioned she has an earlier thread concerning Mary Rose:

http://forums.gardenweb.com/discussions/4602056/what-is-this-on-my-mary-rose?n=34

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The main question in the present thread is: "Is it safe to plant my new own root band Mary Rose near the old one? I mean leave the old one in place for a while until the little one grows in a bit? Will this lead to more infection?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I presented a 2011 (5 year) study concerning whether roses can pass viruses through root grafting. It was done by rose virus scientists at the University of California, Davis. In the introduction part they state:

"observations indicate a means of natural spread."

In the conclusion part they state:

"This indicates that root grafting plays a role in spread of rose mosaic disease."

--------------------------------------------

The above appeared in the The American Phytopathological Society publication: Phytopathology 101:S62.

----------------------------------------------
On page 6 of a Rose Virus document prepared by the University of California, Davis rose group in 2004 the following appeared: "There is some evidence that rose mosaic spreads in commercial rose plantings. UC researchers are presently looking for possible explanations."

http://fps.ucdavis.edu/WebSitePDFs/Newsletters&Publications/RoseProgramBrochure.pdf

-------------------------------------------------

The following was stated in this thread (as an apparent reason not to worry about this form of spread): "The UC Davis study DID show that the virus can be spread from one plant to another planted VERY closely together, as in inches apart."

----------------------------------------------------

I will comment on the inches point. If the plants were planted at typical garden spacings, what difference would that have made to the formation of root grafts? Of course it would of taken longer for the roots to grow and then intertwine and then for the grafts to form. Thus, the experiment would of probably taken longer than the five years allotted to obtain statistically significant data. But, apparently the scientists felt that the experimental spacing does not affect what they stated in the conclusion section: "This indicates that root grafting plays a role in spread of rose mosaic disease."

"*** Betcha it's because those roses have a virus that some of your other roses don't."

This is a likely scenario.

As for DA/US cleaning up their production of roses..... Once they have a significant number of plants infected with virus, it becomes impossible to cull just the infected plants - the "solution" is to ditch 100% of their 'Dr. Huey' understock and start over with clean Huey. This would not only be an enormous expense, but the bigger problem would be the complete disruption of their production timeline, and effectively take them "offline" for at least two years while they built up a volume of hundreds of thousands or ready-to-bud 'Dr. Huey'. Then comes a complete reset of their scion material, which could also take years to accomplish. A total reset of the production facility would in all likelihood take at least five years to accomplish before they would be ready with new, clean inventory to sell. You don't really think DA/US would undertake such a thing, do you?

I certainly do NOT think DA would undertake such a huge project/hit. I can ALMOST understand their dilemma. Think of the HUGE demand for David Austins after this process was completed after a 5 year absence, though. Or, do you think the fickle US buyers would all be lost by then to other breeders? Kordes would probably love the 5 year absence.

Mr. Henry, from what I'm reading in the UC Davis study, the plants were planted in pots together. On Dr. Huey, it came to 10.5% transmission at 5 years. However it has NEVER happened in the garden or nursery by this means, not EVER. I have this personally from someone who is considered THE expert in Rose Mosaic Virus. I feel confident trusting his advice with all his education and personal experience in this field. I'll be planting my new Mary Rose today, and removing the old one in a year or so.

Good for you Lisa. That's what I would do, as well.

Thank you, Dr. Manners.

Lisa Adams, needless to say, I am disappointed that you are risking exposing your other roses to what you yourself describe as:

"grafted Mary Rose must be heavily infected with
more than one virus, or an especially virulent strain",

but that is your choice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the others readers, I would like to point out that a recent reviewed scientific publication has stated the following:

"PNRSV is known to be transmitted mechanically, by root
grafting and by seed (Abdel-Salam et al. 2008; Golino et al.
2011). The virus may be transmitted by pollen in rose
although this hasn’t been fully ascertained (Kuska 2003).
The high incidence of PNRSV in New Zealand is unsurprising
as it is also vectored by the Western flower thrip..."

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Tang/publication/257801675_A_survey_of_viruses_infecting_Rosa_spp_in_New_Zealand/links/54c6a7760cf238bb7d093f40/A-survey-of-viruses-infecting-Rosa-spp-in-New-Zealand.pdf?origin=publication_detail&ev=pub_int_prw_xdl&msrp=lqa39ZTp3kvIxmI4Gm05OCeITctwlSnRRdRkjjXosA8ewccXWaTW_iKiosQP-9fl4ng8BX5eOqohqEmvTTt6U8whYjTWxV3GcbqkrlQw7psFy_8sKsiIErMQ.uN7iJxYUha5U9_kMUB0UbIDC3X38qi1yh-cxY8AA1t5gyhQYvHMLDw-El86AvVeLa8mPzoUe1_2xf4WUlxi1uKteDs4GoDnzbuhsiA.6gfzyMEutm3IqZr5QSE8tPiEITGosRummZOvnyVDPrRfB68GADDnybXJP62Mj_ZXFrYwUiZafZSWFeF7B-1Xzl_MTpd1-xUI8UAK2A.f4CHmFyDYR47q-ozB_Nv9UKy0e3RfRjlJ6z6BkSuL7vDOJufZLHg4j66dTg6RBB0vOVbUjJNcXOnvnBx4vcWDYTO07AQfGNpd5oI2Q

Since the above root grafting statement appears in the paper, it normally means that the rose virus research scientists who wrote the paper, the reviewers (or at least a majority), and the journal editor approved the wording.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, after an article is published, there is a procedure for others to question what was presented. Google Scholar has not reported any such follow up comments for either this paper nor the original 2011 Univ. of California, Davis paper.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

People have been known to have been hit by lightning, but the odds are low enough that I will still venture outside when it's raining. That something is possible is different from that it will be likely.

:-)

~Christopher

After all these years, the sky is still falling, and yet nobody appears to have been injured - so far....... :-P

Sorry that pasted in from Word, so weirdly; the text all arrived ok, but with weird formatting. Readable anyway.

"Still worrying madly about whether I'll catch ebola from chicken noodle
soup..."

The Observer Effect would indicate that if you choose to test yourself for it, you already have Ebola, but if you refrain, then you don't have it.

It amazes me that when Dr. Manners' posts his annual rebuttal to The Sky Has Fallen/Everything Is Infected With PNRSV baloneyism, that this is not the end of the discussion, forever. I suppose it is one of the hazards of the Internet that all discussions are a stream of information and retrieving anything older than a few days/weeks is difficult and unlikely. New participants get exposed to nonsense more often and repeatedly, while the Voice Of Reason (in this case, Malcolm Manners) is less often heard from. So, new participants in discussions - like this one about RMV transmission - are far more likely to be exposed to nonsense and alarmist pseudo-information.

I attempt to find pertinent information both from published information and personal e-mails with rose virus researchers. On my web pages I include a statement:

" This page gives the information that I have collected from my own literature searches and from others posting on the internet. Please let me know if you feel anything is not clear or is not addressed at all as I am continually updating/modifying it as I get feedback."

In a recent rose hybridizers thread, I started a thread concerning the Clean Plant Program:

http://rosebreeders.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=55690

In it I express concern that the information is not being shared. Later in the thread it is stated that:

"Hi Henry,
We just got an email that the PowerPoints of those that presented will be posted on the website with the speakers permission."

In the present thread I earlier posted the following: "My information is due for an update. I have been waiting for the material that was presented at the August 2017 National Roses Clean Plant Meeting "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am particularly interested in looking at virus spread studies done in cool climates. At present my conclusion on my web page:

"Summary

Contrary to early "thinking" plants do have what is now called an immune system (natural defense). The rose's natural defense is better able to overcome the virus as the temperature increases so the concentration of the PNRSV virus is decreased (or possibly even eliminated in the above ground parts of the rose in which certain types of spread could occur - use of pruners, branches touching, pollen spread by insects, seed transfer). Thus, rose spread research done in hot climates may not apply to PNRSV spread in roses in cool climates."

I should modify the above to specifically state: Thus, above ground rose spread research....."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Manners' long post can be put into perspective by looking at the earlier threads on the subject:

http://www.gardenweb.com/gardenweb/query/kuska-manners-mosaic-virus-roses-in-garden.web

Unfortunately, the posts do not remain forever so one can only look at those that have not scrolled off the list.

Nice to know that Henry uses his own old posts to "confirm" his newer ones.

Nothing happening here, folks. Move along now. Just move along.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

The following was stated: " Root grafts: Yes, it's been demonstrated at extremely close planting in a research plot. After many years since that discovery, it remains a fact that NOT A SINGLE rose in a garden (of
the hundreds of millions, perhaps billions grown in gardens) has EVER been
shown to have become infected via a root graft (or by any other means). Not one rose, ever."

H. Kuska comment. The following are examples of how other rose virus scientists are viewing the Golino paper:

"RSDaV was detected mainly in two rows of the Foundation Rose Collection. This distribution is suggestive of root grafting in addition to the possibility of vector spread. Earlier work suggested that root grafting is a mechanism of virus spread in roses for viruses associated with rose mosaic (10)"

http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/PDIS-92-4-0508

A picture of a RSDaV infected rose leaf is given at (see Figure 3):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257801675_A_survey_of_viruses_infecting_Rosa_spp_in_New_Zealand/figures?lo=1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Rose Rosette Virus world is also considering the Golino paper to be meaningful in real world situations. This is one example by Ann Peck:

"And a paper by Golino.. et al.. discusses the transmission of rose viruses by root-to-root grafts within beds of cultivated roses. I think the Golino paper strongly suggests a third vector for the spread of RRD as we have seen some patterns of the spread of RRD in private gardens that are consistent with root to root spread."

http://www.rose.org/rose-care-articles/rose-rosette-disease-sadly/

----------------------------------------------------------------

The reader can read about others with a Google search:

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&q=%22root+to+root+spread%22++rose+rosette+virus&oq=%22root+to+root+spread%22++rose+rosette+virus&gs_l=psy-ab.12..33i160k1.12407.24113.0.26347.3.3.0.0.0.0.184.500.0j3.3.0.dummy_maps_web_fallback...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.147....0.E_-y5KaOMCE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My rose spring dwarf information is at:

https://sites.google.com/site/rosespringdwarf/home

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It may be frustrating to some that scientists cannot always give a definite yes or no to all of Nature's behavior. In this case it is possible to splice a luminous fragment to a virus and follow its path. It has not been done with rose virus spread through root grafting. I assume that there are more important problems for such an elaborate procedure.

I think I need a long holiday from this forum. It has, once again, devolved into chaos.

If anyone needs me, a private message will reach me. Otherwise, I'm just going to work on Newsletters.

So long, for now . . .

I am sorry for the chaos my question has caused. I didn't realize the can of worms I was opening. As for me, my question has been answered to my satisfaction. I thank you all for your help, and it's a done deal. Lisa

Only in this forum would we see a persistent "character" repeatedly disrupt a discussion of the real-world transmission risks of mosaic virus(es) with irrelevant speculative research on the behavior of RSDaV and other viruses.

How terribly helpful.

Yes, Lisa - you've received the best advice on your situation already, and anything that follows is only going to confuse and obfuscate, so consider the topic dealt with. No apologies necessary - Henry does this every time the topic comes up, and his contributions are always vaguely relevant at best, but mostly misleading and alarmist. We have no difficulty putting these discussions into perspective. :-)

Well, I for one am getting deja vu reading this!

Please Jeri, don't up and leave us on account of one member's annoying/ odd posts on one particular thread. You know it'll all blow over before long, like these things always do, and meanwhile we love you and need you here!! ((( )))

comtessedelacouche (10b S.Australia: hotdryMedclimate) since you are from Australia, you may find this document of use:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=21&ved=0ahUKEwiY3KHH5NLWAhUn7oMKHZZSCVoQFgiYATAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpi.govt.nz%2Fdmsdocument%2F12903-rosa-nursery-stock-from-all-countries-risk-analysis&usg=AOvVaw3ob2Ah2diTiPCnfH3i3iof

No, not really very useful, actually, since the document is about New Zealand, which is not Australia; we do not share a government or customs system, and have completely different flora and fauna, and climate. And extremely strict bio-security. But thanks for the thought, even though misguided. I just wasted a whole lot of time ploughing through it, trying to find what on earth it was in it you thought might be useful or relevant to me. Still none the wiser.

Sigh.

Hey Jeri,

don't Let the turkeys get you down!

with love and high regards

claire

comtessedelacouche (10b S.Australia: hotdryMedclimate) since you are from Australia, you may find these links of use:

http://www.rosesocietyuruguay.com/pdf/Australian%20Rose%20Annual%202017.pdf

AND

http://sarose.org.au/

Non illegitimi carborundum.

What ho, Henry! Before I devote any more fruitless hours to perusing your recommended articles, could I please trouble you to:

provide me with a brief summary of the contents of each of those linked sites/articles,

bullet-point the items you believe to be of immediate relevance to me/my situation,

include specific locations/page numbers of those items, and

explain for each item what exactly you feel is the relevance to me, my interests and my situation?

Thank you so much!

comtessedelacouche (10b S.Australia: hotdryMedclimate) I started each post to you with the following qualifier: "since you are from Australia, you may find these links of use:" Please notice the use of "you may find".

I suggest that if you find something in the links that you are interested in obtaining addition information / viewpoints about, that you start a new thread on that point.

If your rose growing skills are anything like what I saw illustrated in the annual, congratulations!

Comtesse,

Since you are from Australia, you may find the following interesting:

http://www.amazingaustralia.com.au/animals/kangaroo_attacks.htm

lol

Love it! You go Nik!

cheerio

claire

I had no idea!