As I said from the get-go, my post was a suggestion, not to single anyone out, and to offer some information why all the confusion with Papilioniidae. So sorry if it ruffled your feathers Sherry... that was not my intent. I realized that you just used the name written in a reference you checked by some author that uses Pterourus, and you quoted another by another author that used Papilio. Comes down to us knowing and so using what is generally the accepted correct name... another reason for my post. In time you know to use Papilio instead of Pterourus. Actually, there are some very valid points suggesting the use of Pterourus for the "New World" Papilioniidae, but in the end Papilio grandfathers Pterourus and it was delegated to being a subgenus. The "authorities" are scientists sweet lady, who will seldom agree on anything easily. It takes rock solid proof to get the majority of them to change taxonomy and have it accepted by the so called authorities. Luckily even with something like 300K lepidopteran species catalogued world wide major conflicts like this one don't come up very often. This one has just seemed to be a sore spot for years in the lep circles IOW. This is all also part of the reason why I have said before there are poor, sort of OK and excellent lepidopteran books available for anyone who wants to get serious about lepidoptera. Depends on the author entirely, and to some extent whether they are a super lumper, a super splitter or take the middle ground. LOL There are just as many or more problems with using common names (although probably not with this particular species). Especially since the common names can be completely different in different places and not contain anything in either common name that might point you to them both being for the same bug. At least with taxonomic names either the genus, species or one of the lessor names stays the same even if someone proves enough differences to validate new nomenclature. This bug is an example of that... Papilio glaucus or Pterourus glaucus. Either way you know it is a glaucus swallowtail. A common names example that can confuse those new to the hobby... lets use Morning Cloak/Camberwell Beauty - both for Nymphalis anitopa but you don't know that from any common ground in those two common names. Lastly, common names do not differeniate past the nominate species (subspecies, form, abs, clines, etc). Many of them look like a totally different species than the nominate that many wouldn't associate a common name with. Anyway, you all use what ever you want and I'll just plug along using the generally accepted taxonomy as I know it. If you don't know what bug I am talking about, it will be easy enough for you to find out what it is on-line to convert to a common name acronym. LOl Larry

Are you aware that you cannot send insects (eggs, larvae, adults) across state lines without a USDA permit?

Jaro: I just got three of the 'Pruhoniceanas' from Iseli through my local nursery--I think they said they were about 3 feet tall or a bit more, and not cheap. I was told they were the last they had. I think Gee has a few about the same size, and Gee and Arrowhead have small grafts available. I may also try the 'Aarburg' and the 'Rothenhausii'. You are right when you suggest that the 'Pruhoniceana' is somewhat like one end of the range of the variation one sees in the species, but to me it is somewhat beyond the end of that range. In any case, I think many of the regular species NS are outstanding in themselves. Another cultivar of this general type I would like to find is 'Pendula Bohenica." Krussmann has a photo that makes it look something like the 'Pruhoniceana,' but the description makes it sound a bit more irregular. I have been growing for a few years three of the 'Pendula Major.' They look promising but it is too early to tell what they realy are. They are, I think, more like the regular species than the 'Prunoniceana,' but worth a try. Iseli has a photo, but I have my doubts, all due respect to Iseli, that their picture is of a true 'Pendula Major'. If it is, then it is really just like some of the more weeping individuals of the regular species, and worth trying only if you want a specimen NS that has good weeping branchlets. But I suspect it is just a bit more interesting than that. Another P. abies cultivar I am curious about is the 'Pendula Monstrosa.' Krussmann says "similar to 'Pendula Major', but the main branches more pendulous, twigs less luxuriant, needles radially arranged." And one other one that has caught my interest is 'Plumosa'. Krussmann describes it as similar to 'Viminalis', but the long pendulous branches denser. Well, if any of you out there know anything about any of these, and/or know any sources, let me know. --Spruce

Well campanula I'm too lazy to be much of a garden control freak. Yes an espalier could look good, although pretty much any of those Rosaceae are out of the question here because the humidity causes them to be constantly beset with fire blight, et al. This spring for example I cut down a big green gage because there's just no hope of getting it to bear w/o an aggressive spraying regime. There are a few exceptions but not applicable to this situation. The more I think about it, the Chilopsis is promising; it has very wirey, flexible branches. They are super drought tolerant, which is important since the roof overhang blocks some rain in this area. They used to be cheap from the old High Country Gardens, but it's the type plant they might not sell anymore since the buyout. Rather than wait for mine to get bigger, I could just buy 4 or 5 and make a hedge of Chilopsis, which would vaguely resemble Nerium in over effect. Not a perfect shading of the wall, but enough to help keep the heat down.