Thanks for all of the replies! I am not setting up a poison garden, but the picture on the link you shared is really pretty. I would mostly be using the plant matter in little satchels and in charms to place on my altar. :D Thanks for the link though. Very interesting!

Joe, Thanks so much. I have confused myself again by looking at some internet pics. If you have time could you explain please. I went to look at some Boraginaceae examples online to see what you describe. In this one it is described as a scorpioid cyme but it appears to only have single row of flowers. Is the axis just elongated so the rows are hard to see or are they always pretty congested like phacelia? http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/bio406d/images/pics/bor/onosmodium_helleri.htm Phacelia does have the double row and is labeled a scorpoid cyme. Here is an example. http://www.calflora.net/bloomingplants/rockphacelia.html I guess my question is if both of these are correctly labeled how can I tell the difference? Do I need to look at it head on? Both of the pictures are from the side. Thanks again. Kate

I guess this depends on where your boundaries of "botany" are. To me, genetics are naturally part of botany and I don't see how to separate the two. Botany incorporates all sorts of biological fields, and isn't limited to "traditional" "old school" botany, including nomenclature, identification, discovery, and taxonomy. Some of the greatest botanists I know are geneticists, horticulturalists, agriculturalists, microbiologists, and biochemists ;o)

Despite it not being a perfect match for Elaeagnus umbellata, I think you have enough characteristics to place it in the Elaeagnus genus. If you look on the USDA Plants database, there is a subform, and I'm sure there are others due to hybridization. And of course invasive plants like these can seed around a bit (I pick out seedlings from my neighbor's elaeagnus all the time) and become "naturalized" ((shutter)). Here is a link that might be useful: Elaeagnus umbellata Thunb. var. parvifolia