What does it mean on DG: "this plaint is said to grow..."?

I have noticed it when I was posting re Thunbergia alata: there are reports of this plant growing in places like Chicago or New Hampshire. I remembere other examples, such as Euphorbia milii is reported to be growing in New Jersey.

Well, any plant can grow anywhere if you put it into an artificial environment, even on Antarctica. I would assume that the original intent of this feature was to indicate if a plant can grow and survive the winter IN THAT CLIMATE, with nothing more than the usual gardening interventions such as weeding or watering.

Am I correct or mistaken?

I think that was the intention, but different people interpret "having success with" a plant differently. Sometimes it's clear that they must have had the plant indoors at least in the winter and I wish there was a way to keep people from putting those reports in. But the other thing with plants like the Thunbergia is there are plants that are technically perennials but are commonly grown as annuals in colder zones, and if it grows really well as an annual someone's going to put in a report that it does well in their area even though it's not perennial there. Even if there was a way to clarify it so that people didn't count their houseplants, you'd still run into that situation.

Well, and what's your definition of "survive the winter," nomosno? Thunbergia grows just fine here in Illinois. So do marigolds. So does clematis. The first 2 reseed. The 2nd dies to the roots.

But they "survive." And what about the winter we had in 2004, with freakishly little snow cover & tons of rain? Things that normally "survive the winter" sure didn't. They rotted, they froze, they died in every way imaginable.

If you're familiar with the way plants work, then PlantFiles is an invaluable resource. But if you need something that's cut & dried, without room for aberration or individual experience, then I guess you're just going to get bent out of shape by PF.

You know, I don't think there's an easy way to address this problem. I frequently run into things in PF where someone in my immediate area has had success, and reported it that way. So I follow their lead, and then we have a slightly colder winter than the one they reported after, and I lose my plants. But I run into the same thing with local reports. Hey, I lost 5 large brugs this winter. In all cases, local people had assured me that those varieties had previously overwintered just fine for them in our area. So I made the decision to put them in the ground and risk them. This time we had a cold winter, so--even though I added protection--I still lost.

The same thing is true for classifications like annual and perennial. I see things in PF all the time that are annuals up north, but perennial in my zone. I also see "perennials" for my zone that don't survive the winter for me. It doesn't even have to be a hardiness issue. Over on the Texas forum, some people report that black & blue salvia--a cultivar from natives--is a terrible garden thug. Some of the rest of us can barely keep it alive.

All people can do is report on their own experience. With living plants there's always a risk.

If, on the same page, DG states that plant is hardy upwards of zone 9, meanwhile people put in reports that they "grow" the plant in a zone 6 location then the page is a confusing source of information. I understand that this is not a scientific enterprise but since DG is the most popular gardening site on the internet, it is important enough that it should be useful for new gardeners.

To the responders: perhaps people can be discouraged by putting in reports of successfully growing something as a houseplant by a disclaimer that states just that, such as "please do not report growing indoors as success" or something like that. (After all, it is Dave's GARDEN and not Dave's Houseplants.) Or, posters could add a note to theis zip code reports in a separate field in which they can clarify if the plant grows only as an annual etc.

Another thing: perhaps one should wait a few seasons before posting "success" with a plant. Some years ago I got some ground cover succulents (sedums) from someone in NYC. I was sure they will be happier than ever in the SoCal succulent haven, but only one made it (sedum sarmentosum) thru 2 years so that it now clearly thrives and grows, the rest struggled for a few years, shriveling gradually, eventually disppeared. They probably need cold winters. I also have a dieffenbachia (someone threw it away in my office and I can't bear seeing plants in the garbage) that I stuck in somewhere, into a protected corner actually. I think that most houseplants "grow" in an average San Diego GARDEN but not dieffanbachia, it practically liqufies by each spring, the leaves turn into a mush and sort of drip off the stems that themselves start to look like overcooked asparagus that turns into mush upon touch. Most of this yuck dries up and falls off, only a short stump remains, from which new leaves come out by May and the process starts again. On the picture, the number 1 is the level at which this plant died off 2 winters ago, the number 2 is where it died off one winter ago, the two #3s are the branches that grew in 2008 and liquified by now, during the currently ending winter. #4 is the liquified leaf that has dropped (dripped?) to the ground from the branch above. There are some small leaves that survived very close to the ground but they also show some damage (i.e. cold damage).

So this is my experience with dieffenbachia. I don't think I should report it as dieffenbachia successfully growing in San Diego. Another person may think that he/she should. The problem with the zip code reports, in my opinion, is that it does not define what DG considers "sucessfully growing".

nomo, I just don't get your beef, so, in answer to your original question, I vote "mistaken."

I may be speaking out of turn because that feature was set up before I joined the PlantFile admin team. I think in a perfect world, it would be best to only add your zipcode to the perennial plants that are reliably hardy in your area, meaning they overwinter and come back every spring (if they die down at all).

However, that's not always how it works...one person's criteria for 'successfully growing' may be different the next persons, and it's impossible to monitor the zipcode reports. When perusing that information, you have to have some idea of the plant's habit, and know that if it's a tender perennial, it most likely has been grown either only during the summer months, or as a houseplant in the colder areas that have been reported.

Any of the plants that are strictly annuals or vegetables, and complete their life cycle in one season, will grow in any area as long as the growing season is long enough to accommodate the plant's needs.

When you find things like this in PlantFiles, please use the red 'Report an Error' button that's in the upper right hand corner of the PlantFile entry and tell us what the problem is. Sometimes the only way we know there is a potential problem is if someone points it out to us, as we can't possibly find them all on our own, and to be honest with you, we might not even know it's an error unless someone tells us. We do depend on the users to help us find errors and report them. It also helps if you can include links to sites that verify the correction or addition you are requesting. (It saves us research time).

There are some plants such as you describe that really should be marked as both annual and tender perennial with the appropriate hardiness zones marked off. Then those of us up here in the frozen tundra will know that for us it's an annual, but those that live in a much more temperate climate may be able to grow them as a perennial. Obviously this isn't true of all plants, and we can't add annual to any perennial that doesn't grow in all zones, but Calibrachoa comes to mind. It's annual for most of us, but if you are lucky enough to live in zone 9 and above, it just may be a perennial for you.



Agreed. Do you have any ideas of how this could be corrected? Keep in mind that we cannot remove zipcode reports. The only one that can remove it is the person that reported it in the first place. So, all of the ones that are currently reported, (by whatever they based their criteria for successfully growing), are pretty much there to stay unless the zipcode report feature was totally removed from PlantFiles, which I don't think is an option.

First, IMHO, DG should define what is "successfully growing"?

If one plants a semperflorens begonia in March and it thrives for several months and dies only with the first frost in December, does 8 months out of 12 count as "Successfully growing"? If one has to harvest a plant's seed, bulbs or roots and keep them indoors for the winter then re-plant them next spring - , does it count as "Successfully growing"?

If DG says yes, then any zip code report is valid, although perhaps not very informative. In this case the rest of my post is moot.

If DG says no, then we have the beginnings of a definition. Perhaps the best way to define "Successfully growing" is to state what is not considered "Successfully growing". This is not a scientific or business site so I think the definition does not have to be overly restrictive. In addition, when a plant was observed to be successfully growing in a park, street, meadow, etc, it should probably also count towards "Successfully growing" even though it is not the poster him/herself who grew the plant.

Joan asked: what to do if now we have a defintion but there are plenty of zip code reports that were made earlier, reports that suggest that the poster had a different idea about "Successfully growing"?

DG is a site for enthusiastic lay people, based on voluntarism, and is overseen by very benevolent and hands-off admins. This is one of the reasons why I find it so appealing.

Based on these principles, I would suggest the following:

1 - DG Admin could send one message to every current user in which he/she is informed that DG now prefers to define "Successfully growing" as [whatever it is]. The user is then asked kindly to review his/her zip code reports and remove any of them that do not fit the definion.

2 - The zip code report page should have a disclaimer stating that reports made before [the date of definitions posted] may have not been posted according to the rules. The rules themselves could be listed there if they are short and simple or a link should be provided to the rules page.

3 - As many posting on DG requires that the poster previews the planned post, a zip code report should perhaps also require an extra step. That step could be a dialog box that asks the poster to consider if the report will adhere to the definition of "Successfully growing". For instance, the dialog box could state this: You are about to report that you had success growing this plant in your zip code. If you are not sure how we define "Successfully growing" please review our definition first. 3 buttons follow: Cancel, Review Definition, Post. The meanings of the buttons are obvious, I presume.

That's all. I think it is as unintrusive as can be and it appeals to people's cooperative sense. Yet, at the same time, it would make this feature more meaningful for people who come here for information.

Perhaps all that's needed is a check box in the zip code report that defines the plant for that area as annual or perennial. There are many tender perennials that I can and do successfully grow as annuals every year. I don't think northern gardeners should be discouraged from growing these just because they will 'only' be annuals for us.