Looking for bishops cap, false meadow rue, green and gold, blue eyed Mary, ladys slippers, ferns...anything but ostrich Have plenty of twinleaf, prairie trillium, crested iris, mayapple, black oak 1 gallon, bur oak 1 gallons, bluebells, columbine, great merrybells, penn sedge, white trillium, many others.... All grown from seed, nothing picked.

Great link, David. And a good read. David, you may not have take the time to read all the novels in the thread and I can't blame you, but the University of Minn relies on the exact same research I've been talking about being the core of all of this so pasting anything from them is just essentially repeating what joepyeweed linked and also supports my claim that there isn't that much study out there supporting the work I question. Only many sites repeating the same source. Note that your other info (pasted, not the link) is very reliant on such words as "presumably" and "may". In other words, reliant on assumptions made and thus can't be presented as fact because it isn't one. Of course, they are much more able to admit this than the UofM group, it seems. I read the whole article, but I read it fast. So if I got something wrong here, please correct me: 1) The author readily admitted that the experiment used adult worms while in the natural site there were primarily hatchlings. I'm guessing on this, but I have a feeling there is a reason they didn't find many adults and it might have something to do with a reduced lifespan in colder climates. This leads to longer incubation periods of the cocoon and so the adult feeders aren't around that long. Using adult worms essentially nullifies the experiment because the adults have at least a month of voracious feeding that the hatchlings won't have. Hardly replication of nature. 2) It is mentioned that the growth of plants increased. Not decreased because of the worms changing the environment. 3) It is mentioned that the most pronounced change in microbial composition was caused by "Time". Not worms. And if the correct age of worms were used in the first place I imagine the rate of change caused by worms would have been even less. It mentioned that water was next in affecting microbial change and that water also affected the rate at which worms could make any changes. Kind of stands to reason that the amount of climate change we have experienced the last 30 years could have more to do with the soil issues than the claims of UofM that its the evil invasive earthworm. The earthworm is simply showing an ability to withstand climate change better in comparison to many of the other life forms in the soil. Not to mention (actually I already did earlier) the chemical changes in rain due to pollution. pH of water greatly affects microbes and worms are much more resilient than many microbes to these changes. Just because there are now more worms in one spot and less microbes doesn't mean that the worms are the culprits. It could also mean that the worms are simply surviving changes that microbes can't and taking advantage of any changes they might have the means to take advantage of. This study actually takes other variables into consideration and admits shortcomings. It's a REAL study that presents real findings from what appears to be an objective standpoint rather than an "I need to make a name" standpoint. Joepyeweed, the heliocentric theory is also one that was refuted for quite some time even though there is a ton more evidence supporting it. Mathematical evidence. But, it is important to note that we all take this as FACT because we think it makes sense. Not because we all understand the mathematical evidence. Why is that important? Because at one time the other theory, geocentricity, made sense to everyone because those in authority told them it does. And when it was challenged with heliocentricity everyone ridiculed those that challenged geocentricity and many people died supporting the use of reason to refute the accepted "scientific" claims. Just like the global warming example I used (except for the killing the opposition part). Thanks for your support in pointing out that just because scientists make claims, it doesn't make it fact and using reason can punch holes in unreasonable claims that don't take all evidence into account. What example is next, the round earth? I'll head you off at the pass. Scientists laughed at the square earth theory based in the Bible, which mentions the corners of the earth several times. Obviously it's a flat round disc! It leaves a round shadow on the moon. But wait! It's a sphere! No it's not, the authorities say it can't be because the bible says the earth sits on four pillars and has edges! It took quite some time for people to use reason to refute what authorities on subjects wanted us to believe in order to uphold reputations and control. And don't try to tell me those people were less intelligent. Ancient peoples were able to survive in environments most of us would die in because they were much better thinkers. Yet, they were able to fall for "an authority says it, it must be true".

Hi all, Sorry this is a double post from the orchid exchange, but I didn't know where to put it. Would anyone be interested in pollinating some native orchids in your yard (or in your pots) and doing some sort of trade later this fall when the pods are ready? The exchanges I'm thinking of are very negotiable and are on the lines one of the following. 1.) NON-NATIVE: I have a few small tropical orchids which I will happily trade to get a large pod or two worth of hardy orchid seed. 2.) NON-NATIVE: For those interested in flasking, I have 15 pods of Phaius bernaysii, (and I only need half of one), as well as a few pods of Bletilla striata, hopefully several Bletilla formosama, a single Pleione bulbocodioides, conceivably some Epi radicans if there was interest. 3.) NATIVE TRADE: I will delightfully take your seed, and if it germinates and grows into seedlings, I will send you a percentage of the seedlings (30% maybe) in one and a half years when they're ready. Of course, please only respond if the plants are on your property: Illegal removal of parts of orchids from parks etc is bad. I will consider any native hardy seed species, except for Cypripedium acaule, the pink lady slipper unless you choose option #3, (don't expect much in return, though), because it's too hard to germinate. Those genera that I am particularly looking for are cypripedium, calypso, pogonia, platanthera, habenaria, calopogon, arethusa, epipactis gigantea, galearis spectabilis, and triphora trianthophora. By the way, if you need help pollinating some orchids, I can help. I also have an excellent essay on the pollination of Cypripedium by Camiel F DeJong that he has posted on the internet for private use. This is for my private research and learning. It is of great interest to me, but It is in the interest of $$ that I don't pay $6 a packet at the Orchid Seedbank Project, as wonderful as it is. Any interest? Ross

Well we have had around 60 responses regarding starting a Canadian native plant forum here on Gardenweb - honestly I don't think it would matter if we had a thousand responses as far as Garden web goes, I think they believe there are 6 people living here in Canada - Thanks for knottyceltic for answering questions and responding to peoples growing interest in native plants. It has come to my attention today that there may be a alternative. I actually received an email from a member who thought I started this group..lol which I didn't anyways I'll get to it - the group is called http://groups.y****.com/group/nativerareplants/ (just select the URL copy and paste) I have replaced ahoo with 4 stars I suggest that if you are interested in native plants to join and support this group and most of all have fun learning & trading our own native plants Cheers Jeff