Dear Diana- >The growth is described as "rhizomatous", but my plants would form densely >clustered masses around the main plant stem, all covered in scales. They >could be separated by cutting into chunks. They could not be pulled apart, >and I would not have described this as "rhizomatous" L. pardalinum usually forms rhizomes which form multiple branches, and the branches in turn rebranch-not just in one layer, but up and down as well as on a level. In a very few years there is a huge mass of bulbs and stems, none of which get enough nutrients, thus non flowering. Dividing L. pardalinum often sets it back and it "sulks" for a couple years. I've often thought that is because the division is done too late, in the fall like most other lilies. L pardalinum, being adapted to west coast growing conditions, makes its' new roots much sooner than lilies from other areas, and digging it too late would result in "losing" this years' roots. I have often wished I could compare digging and dividing as soon as the leaves brown with digging in late August. Early September is probably too late-new roots may have already started growing. My plants did not show any sign of virus the >first two or three years, so they could have acquired it in my care or could >have been virused to start out with. The plants CNPS here (Humboldt County) >are selling now are virused. I have less problem with west coast lilies getting virus than most other lilies-but then I may not have the aphids and leafhoppers you have. There is no such thing as L. pardalinum ssp. >giganteum (although CNPS still calls it that), and the USDA and Fish & Game >both say it is L. pitkinense. My plants were destroyed. Well, actually, yes there is. At one time, L. pardalinum ssp. giganteum was called L. harrisianum, but the trend in recent years has been to submerge most west coast lilies into L. pardalinum, one enormously variable species. First L. harrisianum became L. pardalinum ssp. giganteum, then just L. pardalinum. In this same vein, L. pitkinense may be L. pardalinum-and actually, that might be justified, though it was as distinct as L. harrisianum. If they are both L. pardalinum, they are the same species, but not the same thing. It is about like saying a pink hyacinth and a blue hyacinth are both hyacinths, so they are the same thing. I no longer have L. pitkinense, but what I grew under that name had bulbs which were much less vigorous and spreading. They did have rhizomes, and they did branch, but not as much as L. pardalinum giganteum. The plants also were smaller in all parts than the L. pardalinum I had, which again was smaller than L. pardalinum ssp. giganteum. L pitkinense was originally found in the Pitkin Marsh, and for a long time that was the only location, and there were only about fifty plants when the species was named. A few years later it was reported that blackberries were invading the marsh, and after an estensive search only seven plants were found. I believe Mary Sue mentioned a second location, which I haven't otherwise heard about. Given that the name is being used for two very different plants, it shouldn't be any surprise that there is a lot of confusion about what L. pitkinense really is. One of the pictures in my email yesterday was from a man in England, wanting to know if what he had was L. pitkinense. Ken