In article , Henry Kuska
wrote:

Shiva, Your statement was: "It remains a fact that we have seen no evidence
at all--so
far--that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread from one plant to another in our
gardens."

Please look up the meaning of each of the words that you utilized
(particularly the "at all"). I suggest that you modify your statement to
say that there is some evidence (or even some preliminary evidence) but it
is not sufficient to convince you..
------------------------------------------------------------
You may be interested in downloading the full paper cited in:
http://www.actahort.org/books/246/246_40.htm
"Incidence of Rose Viruses in Spain", M. Cambra, J.L. Martinez-Torres, M.J.
Benaches, E. Camarasa, and M.T. Gorris, Acta Horticulturae, vol 246,pages
309-312, (1989).
They studied 4,730 rose samples. They found 4.2% of the roses had Prunus
necrotic ring spot virus. The breakdown was: 44.0 % of the minatures, 1.1 %
of the hybrid teas, and 1.5 % of Manetti rootstocks. They state: "The high
rate of PNRSV contamination in minature varieties seems to be associated to
their long existence."

What does this mean, "associated with their long existence?"

Later in another paragraph they say:"....since this virus is pollen
transmitted (in addition to grafting). They later state: "The rate of
contamination in Manetti rootstock is quite low; this is probably due to the
usual nursery practice of preventing mother plants from flowering." Their
next statement is: "Manetti plants giving PNRSV positive, might have been
graft-contaminated in the most part." "
-------------------------------------------------------------

Also, does it concern you that the virus has been found in naturally
occuring wild roses?

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/