On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:04:49 +0000, Nick Maclaren wrote
(in message ):

I'd really like to understand this- can I ask what it is about ramblers
that
seems more flexible (and easier to grow)? If I can get my head round this
I
could be on to something (like knowing what I'm doing and even maybe
making a
good choice....)

Ramblers are typically very vigorous species and varieties and
so may be easier to grow in marginal conditions. The division
into climbers, ramblers and shrub roses is pretty arbitrary.
None are true climbers - the closest roses come is ones that
grow up through bushes and are prevented from falling back by
their thorns, and many roses will do that if grown in other
shrubs and make a bush if grown in the open.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Thanks. Ok, I get it now. I was thinking that what I knew some decades ago
when I was doing stuff in my parents garden was still current knowledge! It
isn't. One of my books seems to be saying that we know a lot better nowadays
and cutting ramblers down to nearly nothing could even kill them. So I just
ordered a couple of Alberic Barbier. It sounds very good- I especially like
the references to A.B. having "been seen growing quite happily in unsuitable
conditions".

--
VX (remove alcohol for email)