I don't grow any roses in my shade gardens. My garden has two very shady areas of quite different character. The deeper shade is under a planting of four redwood trees where there is not only shade, but also root competition. The other shade area is in the inner L corner formed by two walls of my house. That one gets a few hours of morning light. Under the redwoods I have some ferns, a couple of hydrangeas, some epimediums, some fuschias, cyclamens, some drought-tolerant heurcheras (not all heucheras are) and most rewarding of all, some hellebores. In my climate the astilbes and hostas I planted here died out. Japanese anemones and liriope also do well in these conditions but are too invasive for my tastes. I planted a few lilies but will probably move them to another location. They lean out at such an extreme angle to seek the sun that they really look rather dreadful there. In the shady L that gets morning sun I grow abutilons, calla lilies, tree peonies, cranesbill geraniums, and more heucheras. I had lilies there and they were happy, but gophers ate them. I'll probably move the lilies from the redwood garden to this spot, but in wire baskets to protect them from the gophers. If my soil were acidic, I could grow rhododendrons. I have tried but they are miserable in my high pH soil. Eventually they die. I have only one left of the many I planted and will not repeat this experiment. Over time I have come to think it constitutes actual plant abuse. Rosefolly

Nothing for me either, thank-goodness. There are some places that you can't just take photos of other properties. This is the case here. Last year someone was driving round taking photographs of properties and took one of me out the front as well. They would then MAIL your picture back and basically tell you what they thought was wrong with your home and how they could "fix" it to sell. I thought that took a lotta gall. Anyway, they are in jail. You can't take photos of peoples homes and you can't print photos of people without permission. I was in the photo. They are in the clink. GGG

Ellen you are NOT checking facts. You are reading the same thing over and over from multiple sources that are NOT reliable. Blogs are NOT reliable! You say: 'I for one am grateful when someone posts for ex re that mulch that caused some dogs to die.' Again, I say you didn't bother to find out what the ASAPA had to say, SOME dogs did NOT die, one did and it was suspect. No one can even varifiy it... according to the A.S.A.P.A. Or does a blogger know something about animals that the A.S.A.P.A. didn't get the memo on? Summary of the eRumor: There are several versions of this eRumor but all of them say that commonly sold cocoa mulch contains theobromine which can be lethal to cats and dogs. One version tells the story of a pet owner who lost a dog because of cocoa mulch. The Truth: It's fairly well known that some animals should not eat chocolate and according to the experts we checked with that warning applies to cocoa mulch as well, although the number of reported animal deaths is very low. The villain is theobromine, a chemical that is similar to caffeine. It can give a boost to humans but dogs and cats cannot always metabolize it successfully and it can be lethal to them. That is especially true of the shells of the cacao beans, which are ground up and used in cocoa mulch, and contain even higher levels of theobromine than the bean. Most packaging of cocoa mulch makes it clear that it's not for human or animal consumption. It also appears that all cocoa mulch is not the same. One manufacturer we checked with, the maker of Mirana cocoa mulch, said that their mulch is the result of a series of processing steps and that the level of theobromine in their mulch is barely detectable. We did find at least one documented case reported in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).. The report says that a dog that had ingested cocoa mulch developed convulsions and died 17-hours later. An analysis of the stomach showed ingested cacao bean shells and lethal levels of theobromine. The AVMA has issued a release because of this new eRumor about cocoa mulch. It says that according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), there have not been any reports in 2006 of animals dying from cocoa mulch ingestion. In the years spanning 2004 and 2005 there were 16 cases of cocoa mulch ingestion reported, none of which resulted in death. The ASPCA says that the account of the death of the dog named Calypso that is in the eRumor is 'suspect.' The symptoms are not completely consistent with death from cocoa bean ingestion. The ASPCA says that although vomiting is a common result, the dog is described as having had a single seizure the next day during a walk and then dying suddenly, which is not what would be expected. Here is a link that might be useful: Truth or Fiction

OH!! I see lots of them. They are kind of creepy because they kind of thrash around in your hand.....the pointy end wiggles around! I 'dispose' of them promptly! :) gg