Dear James, Your point is taken. Any plant found to be weedy should have its region of weediness circumscribed, precisely what we have been attempting to do with one species here. A broader declaration is valueless, or worse, misleading. In other words, we should not say 'invasive' or 'weedy' etc, but we could say 'invasive in the region...' Standing back, if we do not provide warning where it is necessitated, to people who have not attempted growing some bulb, then we have failed in our responsibility. Andrew Wilson San Diego Dear Friends, Perhaps I am needlessly paranoid about the 'Invasive Plant Police', but I do not think it is the purpose of this forum or the wiki to add injury to this white list/ black list endeavor. I am convinced that almost any plant can be exuberant, weedy, over active, whatever, given the right conditions*, but any (and I do mean any) stamp of 'INVASIVE" on the wiki will merely serve as further proof of the need for prohibition and denial of the right to grow this plant in every other part of the country. By keeping invasive comments into the body of 'conversations' on individual messages, we do not give a PBS stamp to this situation. On the email list individuals can share experiences without tagging a plant over the entire course of its cultivation. I just suggest we be extremely careful before we start tagging any item on the wiki as "Invasive' and so approved by PBS. Is this too extreme to suggest? Just think about what this means and its repercussions. Best Jim W. * For example, I was recently shocked to hear from Ina in New Zealand what an "invasive weed" Lapageria rosea had become for her. Surely there are extremely few people who would want to see this blacklisted from growing in the US because it has invasive tendencies in N. Z. -- Dr. James W. Waddick