gg, i was so impressed with your very articulate exposition on this topic- that I read it slowly and out loud to My Love. Occasionally visitors to the 'retum will notice our many Berberis- and comment on the Invasives list. The response that I give is usually rather harrumpphy (no surprise to pm et al!) I talk about how parts(just parts) of the official 'Invasives' list in Ma.were written for Reader's Digest level education, whereby the intricasies of this barberry or that barberry are believed to be too complex for the average buyer/gardener, so the whole barberry genus is lumped into the Invasives category. Berberis, the 'wild' one that grew here on our property when we moved here 23 yrs ago- THAT i have seen bird-seeded around. But all my berberis cultivars- aurea, helmond's pillar, rosy glow, etc etc etc- in my 23 years here- i have never seen them pop up here or on abutting properties. And berberis is not on the Invasives list in abutting states.I buy mine in Ct. I woud imagine that other 'Invasives' lists from other states- must also share these problems.? end of rant. I can't help myself; it just makes me sooo mad!! Others can now take their turns! best, mindy

I had read the comments from the Tea Bag ladies, but will go back to one of the first questions I asked about 'Francis Dubreuil', when this thread first began to drift from its original topic: Was the original 'Francis Dubreuil' a "true Tea", or was he a "Hybrid Tea"? Or was he that other thing, a "Tea hybrid"? The earliest descriptions of FD say his color was a dark red with pink or cerise or amaranth highlights. My assumption is that 'FD' was darker than other red Teas, but would not have looked terribly out of place hanging out with other reds such as 'Gen Gallieni', 'M. Tillier', 'Souv. de David d'Angers', 'Mlle Christine de Nouë', ''Corallina', 'Safrano a Fleurs Rouges', 'Princesse de Sagan', 'Bardou Job' and- of course- 'Souv de Therese Levet'. Here's a 1901 review from a German rose reviewer about Francis: "Francis Dubreuil (Dubreuil 1895) is not only one of the most excellent red Tea roses but also one of the best Tea roses of all. The flower is in fact only of medium size, and sometimes even small, but keeps extremely well. It lasts In bud form for a very long time, and is then at its most beautiful. The growth is vigorous and the crown is well branched. What I like most about this rose, is its capacity to produce solitary flowers on long, upright stems, I do not like roses in flower umbels (in clusters). Its floriferousness (flowering period) is very long, it lasts right up to the frosts." That mention of "solitary flowers on long, upright stems" makes me think we might find some HP ancestry in Francis' background, no? And it accords well with other early mentions of FD having "diffuse growth"... Here's an early discrepancy, though; the review above says 'FD' "lasts in bud form for a very long time, and is then at its most beautiful". Contrast that with an earlier British review- Francis "is described as full flower of a fine form, opening very readily, perhaps too much so"... So if Francis was dark red and had diffuse growth, he seems to be quacking like an early HT, and not a "pure Tea"? Was he classified as a Tea because of his fragrance? According to Guillot, 'FD' is descended from 'Souv de David d'Angers' (described as "deliciously fragrant" in 1864) who is in turn descended from 'Caroline', the Tea that may be synonymous with 'Bermuda Spice'. Some early reviews of 'FD' say he is fragrant, most say nothing, and at least one reviewer says "not fragrant". This assortment of varying opinions shouldn't be surprising, given humans' different capacities for smell, and given the way odors can vary according to temperature, time of day, etc. The scent of Tea roses seems to be especially elusive, and elicits a confusion of descriptions, so I'm inclined to believe that the original Francis probably had a Tea scent and was fragrant to some people and not to others. However, I think it's also possible that if there were an early confusion with at least one grower offering a different rose as 'Francis D', the differences in opinion about form and fragrance could stem from an early switcheroo. Just because there was a later mix-up with 'Barcelona' doesn't mean there wasn't also an earlier mix-up somewheres down the line. And if there were an earlier misidentification, this early imposter might be the rose that was later sent from Sangerhausen to Oz in 1981? Another question I have relates to size. The Tea rose grown by Mr Knight just outside of Sydney was a large rose bush. The roses grown in the U.S. and Oz as FD today both seem to be more compact and HT-like (although the Aussie plant that hails from Sangerhausen seems to have a earlier HT look than 'Barcelona' does?) I'm trying to get things straight in my own head, so if I'm off-course in my suppositions, please get me back on track. Virginia

There is a book called 'Grow What Where' which could give you a good idea. I used to have it and lost it with my sister's house fire. I am about to buy it again. It is just lists of Aussie natives that are good for or bad for particular things, like pipes. Book review here: http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/APOL2006/oct06-r1.html Cheers Judy

Since invasive species are highly location dependent, it makes the most sense to look at local sources for a list for what is considered invasive in your area. Some states or regional authorities have much better lists than others afa as detail or control options are concerned but generally all invasive species plant lists are clickable in that doing so for a specific plant will get you to more detailed info about that species. Otherwise, the Invasive Plant Atlas is a good generalized database.