Hey Guys, I am putting together some of the shipments this weekend to go out Monday. I can currently dig: Trilliums (unknown colors, most likely white) Avens Cooky Bearded Iris Obedient Plant - Pink easter lily amaryllis dwarf pink double hollyhock columbine (seedlings) LMK with an email if you would like to set up a trade for Monday! Still looking for Japanese Forest Grass, Creeping Phlox, any spring bulbs, poker primrose.... lol, this could get to be a long list. Tempt me - I am so ready for spring!!!! Miranda, Upstate NY, Zone 5

Anyone ever heard of the Fulton County or Fulton Strawberry Apple? I'm afraid they may be extinct. I'm also looking for an Illinois apple called "Exquisite". They are all varieties developed by one of my ancestors, Isaac Bowen Essex. I mentioned these apples in an earlier post but I was hoping someone may recognize the name in the subject header.

Amanda, there are many cases of names being applied incorrectly; all apples of new york is doing is documenting that fact. If you look there is a separate entry for Canada Red in Apples of New York which clearly is describing a different apple and which lists Steeles Red as a synonym. It also mentions that the apple in fact goes by that name in Michigan, not by Red Canada or some other name (in 1904 that is!), which makes it nearly certain that the apple Denni had was in fact Apples of New York's Red Canada. Here is the Red Canada entry from that book: RED CANADA. REFERENCES, i. Thacher, 1822:131. 2. Fessenden, 1828:131. 3. Manning, Mag. Plort., 7:47. 1841. 4. Hovey, Ib., 13:75. 1847. fig. 5. Watts and Down- ing, Horticulturist, 1:482. 1847. 6. Downing, Ib., 2:289. 1847. 7. Hovey, Mag. Hort., 14:124. 1848. 8. Horticulturist, 2:483, 544. 1848. 9. Thomas, 1849:171. fig. 10. Cole, 1849:127. ii. Emmons, Nat. Hist. N. Y., 3:101. 1851. col. pi. No. 42. 12. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1852. 13. Mag. Hort., 19:68. 1853. 14. Elliott, 1854:102. fig. 15. Hooper, 1857:76. 16. Downing, 1857:97. fig. 17. Warder, 1867:542. 18. Regel, 1868:465. 19. Barry, 1883:353. 20. Wick- son, 1889:247. 21. Lyon, Mich. Hort. Soc. Rpt., 1890:296. 22. Bailey, An. Hort., 1892:247. 23. Amer. Card., 20:104. 1899. 24. Budd-Hansen, 1903:161, 276 THE APPLES OF NEW YORK. fig. 25. Powell and Fulton, U. S. B. P. I. Bui, 48:53. 1903. 26. Beach and Clark, N. Y. Sta. Bui, 248:140. 1904. SYNONYMS. Bristol of some. Canada Red (25). Canada Redstreak (26). NONESUCH (2). NONSUCH (i, 3, 8, 13). Nonsuch (9). OLD NONSUCH (7, 10). Old Nonsuch (6, 9, 14, 15, 21, of Massachusetts 8 and 16). Red Canada (13, of Western New York 8 and TO). Red Winter (26). Richfield Nonsuch (10, n, 14, 15, 16, 19, of Ohio 9). Steele's Red Winter (20, 24, 25, 26, of Michigan 16). Steel's Red (17). Winter Nonsuch (10). Not the Canada Red of some portions of Ontario. See Roseau, page 292. This is a red winter apple which belongs in the same group with Baldwin and Esopus Spitsenburg. When well grown and in prime condition it is one of the best apples of its season for dessert use on account of its desirable size, attractive form and color and superior quality. It is well adapted to either general or special markets and often brings more than average prices. The quality of the fruit varies much in different seasons and in different locali- ties. When grown on heavy clay soils its quality in some seasons is decidedly inferior to that of Baldwin and would be rated only fair to good; but when grown on certain fertile soils of a gravelly or sandy nature in favorable seasons it develops color, flavor and quality fully equal to that of Esopus Spitzenburg. It stands heat well before going into storage and goes down gradually (26). Its season is somewhat variable. The commercial limit in ordinary storage is January or February, and in cold storage, April. Its season for home use usually extends from November to March or later. Although the fruit may remain apparently sound it is apt to lose much of its high flavor after midwinter. The tree is somewhat lacking in hardiness and is but a moderate grower. It should be top-worked on some hardier and more vigorous variety such as Bald- win or Northern Spy. In some cases it is an annual bearer but more often it is not a sure cropper. Waugh recognizes Roseau as the correct name for an apple which is commonly known in Ontario under the name of Canada Red. It is quite distinct from the variety above described. 1 For further consideration of this matter the reader is referred to Roseau, page 292. Historical This variety probably originated in New England but its origin is obscure. Thacher (i) in 1822 described it under the name Nonsuch and later Fessenden (2), Manning (3), Hovey (7) and other New England writers l Can. Hort., 18: 184. 1895. Waugh, Rural N. Y. t 62:143. 1903. Rural N. Y. ( 62:238, 282. 1903. THE APPLES OF NEW YORK. 277 recognized this name for the variety. In 1849 Cole (10) described it as the Old Nonsuch. It appears to have been brought into Western New York from the vicinity of Toronto, Canada, and afterwards cultivated in this region under the name Canada Red. The earliest mention we find of the variety under the name Red Canada or Canada Red, as these names appear to have been used interchangeably, is that of Watts and Downing in 1847 (5). In Michigan it has been often cultivated under the name of Steele's Red Winter. In some portions of Eastern New York it is grown under the name Bristol. It has been pretty generally distributed throughout the state. In some few localities its cultivation in commercial orchards is increasing but seldom has it been planted to any considerable extent, and, generally speaking, it is found only in old orchards. TREE. Tree medium to large, moderately vigorous to vigorous; branches short, stout, curved, crooked. Form upright to roundish, rather dense. Twigs medium in length, straight or nearly so, rather slender to moderately stout; internodes below medium to long. Bark olive-green tinged with reddish- brown, netted or streaked with thin scarf-skin, slightly pubescent. Lenticels scattering, not very conspicuous, small, round, slightly raised. Buds promin- ent, large to medium, long, narrow, plump, acute, free or nearly so, slightly pubescent. Leaves medium to broad, rather thin. FRUIT. Fruit medium to nearly large, pretty uniform in size and shape. Form roundish inclined to conic and somewhat flattened at the base, nearly sym- metrical and pretty regular but sometimes elliptical or obscurely ribbed and with sides a little unequal. Stem medium to rather slender, pubescent. Cavity usually large, acuminate, deep, wide, often partly russeted and with radiating green or russet rays, usually symmetrical, sometimes slightly fur- rowed. Calyx small, closed or partly open, pubescent. Basin small, usually narrow, shallow to moderately deep and rather abrupt, furrowed and some- times slightly wrinkled, often somewhat oblique. Skin tough, nearly smooth especially toward the cavity, slightly rough about the basin, rather clear light yellow or green largely overspread in well-colored specimens with a fine deep red blush, indistinctly striped with deeper red. Dots conspicuous, grayish or fawn colored. Toward the cavity they are scat- tering, large and often elongated as in Baldwin and Esopus Spitzenburg, but as they converge toward the apex they become more numerous and smaller. Prevailing effect very attractive bright deep red. Calyx tube elongated cone-shape or somewhat funnel-form. Stamens marginal. Core sessile, axile or nearly so, medium to rather small; cells symmetrical, closed or slit ; core lines clasping. Carpels usually smooth, roundish, narrow- ing somewhat toward the apex, mucronate, but slightly emarginate if at all. Seeds very numerous, medium to rather large, angular, long, moderately wide, plump, obtuse. Flesh whitish with yellow or greenish tinge, firm, crisp, rather fine-grained, tender, juicy, aromatic, rich, agreeably subacid but becoming rather too mild toward the close of the season, good to best Scott

Sammy, are you trying to make me feel better by dupe posting also? ;-) I'm starting to think there's another GW bug... So yeah, you know, I know we're supposed to keep off-roses topics away, but I think info on gel fire retardant is good information to pass along as we have many members not just in fire prone Calif. but also the plains and desert states like Idaho, Arizona, etc. We can just say it's so our roses don't burn up, right? 'Gel' is a polymer that is extremely hydrophilic and thus absorbs many, many times it's weight of water. In fire prevention, the idea came to a fireman in Florida who noticed that baby diapers don't burn in house fires (wouldn't you know ;-) In gardening, I think the polymer may be similar to the crystals we buy to retain moisture in potting soil. Have you ever taken a teaspoon of the stuff and put it in a quart of water? If not, do try it to see how it works and it makes a cool science demo for the kids. All the same idea but somewhat different formulation/excecution. Segue a few years later and it has been available for home/consumer use for the last few years. For professional use, the San Bernardino Co. FD has a 'gel task force' of trucks that are used to spray homes on the front line of the fire, thus enabling firemen to not be in harms way. Also, according to forum members, there was a Liberty Mutual truck in town to do the same to it's insurees, the only problem was they were not pre-approved to go into the mandatory evacuation area, so that's something that needs to be worked out with departments in the future. I know SBFD had good success with it a few years ago with the Big Bear fire, but it was a new idea at the time. Some of the air tankers can use it as well, problme is, it is expensive. Gel vs. foam. Gel is much more effective retarding fire because it is water-based where as the red foam retardant that you see planes drop is a chemical 'fluffed' with air. Don't ask me how it works. Back to the home consumer. There are two brands that I'm familiar with, Barricade & ThermoGel, I'm sure that there are more. Preferences by fire personnel in town vary. Thankfully we were given a Barricade home kit by a fire inspector friend who moved out of town. We have another friend who uses it who's a retired captain and now works fires as an information officer. Otoh, the guys at our local station who live in town tend to have ThermoGel and that is what the hardware store carries. What's the difference? I honestly haven't done enough research to satisfy my science self yet. HOWEVER, Barricade touts being canola oil based, whereas other companies evidently use 'mineral oil' bases. Again, what's the difference? I haven't had the time to confirm Barricade's claims, but here's the problem they claim with other brands: "Q: WHAT IS NPE-FREE BARRICADE II? A: NPE-Free Barricade ® II is the result of 10 years of research and testing to eliminate nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) and petroleum distillate from the original Barricade formula. NPE-Free Barricade ® II has been approved for use by the US Forest Service in a wide range of firefighting functions including application by large air tankers, smaller Single Engine Air Tankers (SEATs), helicopters using buckets as well as firefighters on the ground using fire engines. Barricade ® II is the first and only liquid fire gel concentrate that has been approved for use by the Forest Service that does not contain toxic chemical additives known as NPEs and petroleum distillate oils. Environmental organizations have called upon the U.S. Forest Service to ban the use of other firefighting chemicals that contain NPEs. Barricade ® II was specifically developed for use by commercial and government entities where a large quantity of gel is used or there is frequent contact by firefighters. Q: What are NPEs and are they dangerous to animals or humans? A: NPEs (a.ka. Nonylphenol Ethoxylates) are surfactant components found in some other brands of fire gel products. Recent scientific studies have shown that NPEs have negative effects on the reproductive systems of animals and humans in extremely low doses which can cause birth defects in future generations. Currently, the US Forest Service testing program that approves chemicals for use in wildland firefighting does not examine the potential effects on future generations...it only looks at the short-term. Environmental groups have requested that the Forest Service cease using and rescind approvals on fire chemicals that contain NPEs. Barricade is proud to offer the ONLY liquid fire gel that is completely free of toxic NPEs and petroleum distillates. Barricade is the only fire chemical of any kind to be awarded the prestigious "Champion" award from our nation's EPA." Ok, so I'm a microbiologist and chemist, I'm not. Is this a warning where if you give 3 trillion times the dose to a rat it keels over dead, I dunno. According to Wikipedia, "Toxicity concerns Since these compounds are widely produced over the world and are designed to flush down the sink, concerns about their safety has increased in the past years. Several research programs have shown that these surfactants have a mild to medium estrogenic function. [1] Consequently, this class of detergents has been effectively banned for commercial "down-the-drain" applications in Europe, and these compounds are not found in laundry detergents in the USA." I don't have access to the referenced article. I did try to find the MSDS for a couple of other products and so far, haven't found comments about this chemical. So anyway, point being, we are all somewhat new to this type of product, I am doing as much research as I can. Performance being equal, I guess we'll continue with what we have pending more study/information on my part. Price point. Well, a 4 gallon home kit of Barricade with sprayer attachments for your hose run around $326. I assume other brands are around the same. Shelf-life. That's a conundrum. Guaranteed shelf-life of Barricade is 3 years. I know ours was older. All mfgrs recommend shaking the gallons every so often so that it doesn't settle which will cause nozzle clogging because the gel won't siphon out. It may be over time that the warrantied shelf-life increases as companies keep their stock longer or come up with more stable formulations, but bear in mind that's also a liability issue for the companies. Use and clean up. Use, well, wear a rain coat and make sure you've read the instructions before the call to evacuate. ;-) The stuff is mess if it's windy, which it usually is for fires like these. Also, coverage depends on your water pressure. Our clean up was pretty easy because as I said, we should have shaken it (but didn't know) so we didn't get it on thick enough. 'Stickiness' depends on surface and they recommend that you spray water on it to rehdrate and then come back with a stream of water. Ours came off of old paint fine, also windows. Faux shutters required more water. We also sprayed the attic vents. Plants. Barricade is safe for plants, you can read up on other brands if you decide to buy. Our only no-joy was that we couldn't get the crowns of our pines, the bigger ones are about 80' or so with the 3/4" home hose setup. All in all, moving forward, we plan to replenish what we used. If you live in a high fire danger area, it's cheap insurance.