Sound, smell. I noticed that Mel specified "visual interest" in her original post, but it seems to me that many people are instinctively looking for non-visual sources of interest when they consider the problem proposed. I think this may tie in to what I was saying on the "mood" thread. Sometimes the visual element isn't really what creates interest. Even the bird watching, while it certainly relies on sight, seems to me to be engaging on an *intellectual* level, rather than purely a visual one. Static pictures really just aren't very stimulating. Even the loveliest static view will become boring if you're forced by circumstance (like being bed-ridden due to a long illness) to look at nothing else for a long period of time. This subject is rather near to my heart, as I was recently laid up in bed for a long time. My bedroom window is on the lee side of my house. When I was ill, I found myself wishing that it looked out instead to the windy side of the property. Motion makes a view less static and far more stimulating. Wind makes interesting noises, and wind through trees can create moving shadow plays on the walls of the room. The sound of the rain on the windows and roof is much louder on the windy side, and when the water hits the windows, it creates interesting rivulets on the glass. It doesn't do that on the lee side. Wildlife is also kinetic, and therefore stimulating. On the mood thread, I noticed that many people talked about wanting their gardens to be "relaxing." But I think that often, when planning for a view out a window, it might help to think more in terms of making things more stimulating. Part of what we like about the outdoors, after all, is that things are always *moving* out there. If I were planning for a view out a window for someone who might be forced to spend a lot of time with that as their only or primary view, I'd think in terms of motion. Also sound, smell, and wildlife.

Wow. This really isn't that confusing. And just because there are websites - albeit ones that SHOULD know better - with incorrect or misleading terminology, that still doesn't make it so. Thanks to samMD for the new post with the solidly researched article. The misunderstanding here - it appears - is that 'Bradford' was selected as a "sterile" tree. The tree was selected for vigor, flower, form, etc. That it reluctantly or never set fruit when reproduced clonally and had no cross-pollination partners nearby was just a happy accident. Here's a bit clipped from a National Parks Service site, found here: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/pyca.htm Background Callery pear was imported multiple times to the U.S., including the first introduction in 1909 to the Arnold Arboretum and an introduction in 1916 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for development of fire blight resistance in the common pear (Pyrus communis), which was devastating the commercial pear industry. It was widely planted as a rootstock for common pear long before it gained interest as an ornamental. Around 1950, the ornamental value and hardiness of Callery pear were recognized, leading to the development of a number of cultivars, including ‘Bradford.’ Cultivars in the U.S. originated from China and represent different genotypes. While some genotypes are self-incompatible, meaning they require cross pollination from another genotype in order to set seed, others can pollinate themselves. Different genotypes growing near each other (e.g., within about 300 ft.) can cross-pollinate and produce fruit with viable seed. Also, cultivars are often grafted onto seed-grown rootstocks with varying genotypes; if the plant produces shoots from the rootstock (which it often does), then these shoots and the graft can pollinate one another. Thus, the Bradford pear cultivar is one of several cultivars (varieties) of Callery pear capable of spreading and being invasive. Pyrus calleryana ‘Bradford’ is one genotype. It is propagated asexually (by grafting and cuttings) and does not change over time. Any plant resulting from a seed produced by Pyrus calleryana ‘Bradford’ is a different genotype of Pyrus calleryana and not a member of any cultivar (unless somebody propagates that seedling and names it as a new cultivar). The plants that spread in natural areas are not cultivars. They are sexually reproducing populations consisting of multiple genotypes that recombine every generation. I think it is pretty self-explanatory. Hyperbole about Bradford pears setting fruit in isolation can have multiple answers - most of which is that they really aren't isolated. The simplest fact that it is a tree grafted onto seedling understock which can sprout and flower - producing the cross-pollination opportunity "in house" - is likeliest to be the reason. And I cannot believe that with the longstanding nursery tradition in the Volunteer State - and the research university housed in Knoxville - that one could state that "other cultivars are relatively rare in landscapes in this area". There are 31 TNLA members in Knoxville alone, and I'd gather that there are more than a few in the general territory. That's just growers, which doesn't include garden centers, landscape contractors, and mailorder purchasers. It doesn't take many partners to make the fertile fruit/seeds. Hollywood epics are going to be low on the list of sources of fact-based science in this regard, too. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Here is a link that might be useful: NPS link about Bradford Pear

80,000 year old aspen grove, Remarkable indeed seeing how they would have been underneath a mile of ice at the time :) Recently my part of the country hosted their annual nursery trade show with 960 vendors. Wanna know how many were displaying bearberry??? Zilch, Nada, Nary a one. Its just not a plant seen very often around here. I've seen it only one time in a cultivated setting, along a govt building in DC where it grew happily. Undeterred by bad luck at the trade show I did in fact find a wholesale nursery in New Jersey with a beautiful supply of plants, not that it bothers me but this is clearly a clone, no berries.

From the above link: Average landscape size: Grows 6 to 8 ft. tall, 5 to 6 ft. wide in 10 years; slightly larger with age. It's not of course going to grow 7' tall in 10 years and then never get more than slightly larger afterward - there is nothing about one of these being only 10 years old that makes it suddenly start growing in tiny increments. And there doesn't seem to have been a huge difference between what has often been presented as "Compacta" on the market here in the past and the typical species - you are going to have a long wait for 20' in either case. It is true that recently I have seen some material that might in fact be more true to type 'Compacta'*, with small leaves, a small looking habit and a mere sprinkling of flowers. And the appearance of clonal uniformity - unlike the apparently sometimes seed raised material of the past, with mixed flower colors (some pink, some white) in the same blocks, other variation evident. *As described by one print reference I have here, at any rate