Marquest; I wasn't criticizing you either. I have several Dracaena marginata, It has been my experience that they grow better when not kept this wet when grown in soil however they will grow pretty well in passive-hydro. I would guess that if you need to use a heavier soil so they stay damp longer that you use either a shallower pot or in a deep pot you screen off the bottom third to half using a plastic window screen supported from below, with the grow mix on top of that. I have another group of spathes that are grown in a 14" pot that is 10" deep but the bottom half of the pot is filled with rolls of plastic chicken fence so there is only about 5" of soil in there with air under the soil.

Steve also says, and I quote: "It should also be understood plants also need oxygen and draw it in through their roots and that is why soil mixtures like the ones Al writes about are so important. I could write on this for a long time but will try to sum it up quickly. It isn't the water in the soil that kills many of our plants, it is the saprophytes that thrive in muddy soil. The saprophytes feed on dead tissue and thus deprive the plant's roots of oxygen. Many folks prefer to only water once a week or sometimes only twice a month. the soils Al describes do not support saprophytic growth." I think it needs to be understood that plants don't want to be watered on a specific schedule, i.e. once a week, or twice monthly, etc... whether they need it or not. They want to be watered when they need water, and not until such time. This may change slightly as the seasons change, or if the pot's location changes, or if other variables change. The better suited a medium is at negating any perched water table, the wider the margin for error becomes in watering. Personally, I avoid using CRFs... mainly because I don't know how much nutrients are being released at any given time. I like the control I get using a balanced liquid fertilizer. I also like the idea of providing a slow, steady buffet for my plants, as it were. I like knowing that the nutrients needed are constantly available in low, even doses... and that every time I water, any leftovers are being flushed from the durable, porous medium I use. At the same time I water/feed, I'm also allowing for the all-important exchange of oxygen and gases, to and from the root zone, so my plants' roots can breathe. Humidity is important, to a certain degree... but I've found that misting is just about useless. It makes more sense to provide humidity through the use of a humidifier, if possible... or to utilize humidity trays with gravel and water, keeping air continuously moving to help the evaporation process. Underlying everything, however, is having a good understanding of how container growing differs from garden growing, understanding the purpose of a medium, and having a basic understanding of how and why we do the things we do. Combined, this helps us make knowledgeable, informed choices where our plants are concerned.

Leucoplast was a term I co-opted myself for variegation. You probably aren't going to find many books that call them that, but it is correct with respect to the Latin: "colorless/white plastid." I did find a review paper that used the same terminology: http://www.springerlink.com/content/01148l09u2553067/ I don't know if you will have access to these journals (through JSTOR etc), but some scientists have studied variegation. Looking into the literature, it looks like nucleus-controlled non-chimeric variegation is more common than I previously thought and some common internet resources (e.g. Wikipedia) would have suggested. Still, it is clear that non-viral variegations are extremely common and possibly much more common than viral variegations. Some examples of genetic variegation. Nuclear control (non-chimeral): *Saintpaulia ionantha http://www.jstor.org/pss/2444194 ****There are also chimeral variegations in African violets *Dieffenbachia "Camille" http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/77/4/285.short *Arabadopsis thaliana http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/84/2/138.abstract Chimeral: *Ficus rubiginosa 'Variegata' http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/1/51.full *Tobacco http://www.jstor.org/pss/2440210 *Barley and Rice http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/13/6/544.pdf ****Figure three is a very good visual explanation of the concept. Clearly non-viral variegation is common to many groups. One will notice that an aroid is reported (Dieffenbachia) with nonviral genetic variegation. My recollection is that Dieffenbachia variegation is natural, as in D. seguina and D. regina, and cultivars simply exaggerate the variegation. I wasn't able to access the fulltext of that article, so I can't say quite as much. This paper reports Epipremnum aureum, another variegated aroid, as natural variegation (a surprise to me): http://www.springerlink.com/content/d005p75vg1171860/fulltext.pdf. It looks like this is controlled by nuclear genes and is non-chimeral. Another example of natural aroid variegation is in Schismatoglottis calyptrata (http://www.springerlink.com/content/wmeda9kpt7d2bnga/). Another paper shows/mentions natural variegation in Homalomena and Caladium (http://www.springerlink.com/content/5608833712u8537r/). I think it is clear that natural variegations are relatively stable and under genetic control, rather than being virally transmitted. They frequently function to deter herbivores by mimicking damaged leaves. It seems clear (IMHO) that at least in many cases, aroid variegation is not due to artificial infection by viruses. No doubt it has been reported for several plants, such as Zamioculcas, but I don't think that one can conclude that all aroid variegations (even artificial) are necessarily viral in origin.

Hi, There are a few varieties that get BIG. Like 'Mauna Loa.' Huge flowers and foliage. But the ones they sell at HD in smaller pots dont get that big. They do grow fast in the right conditions and will maybe get a few feet tall. Give them some morning sun and they will flower well. Jen