Shiva said: "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."

My reply. Oh?
http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/tom_virus.html



Henry Kuska, retired

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

I found the following errors in the sites you mentioned. When a site contains
two items of misinformation I start to doubt the reliabilty of the rest of
their information. Cleaning your pruners between plants isn't a bad idea, but
since symptoms of RMV may not show up for several years you would have to
disinfect everytime you work on a different plant.

"Mosaic:
snip
Control:
snip
Plant virus resistant roses if possible. "

There is no such thing as an RMV resistant rose. If you graft an infected root
to a healthy cutting, it will be infected.


"Rosette and Witches Broom:
snip
Control:
The exact cause of this disease is unknown. Infected plants cannot be cured.
Try to control insects, particularly leaf hoppers and plant hoppers....."

RRD is caused by a mite. And there is an insecticide which kills the mites
that spread the disease. See Ann Peck's site for more details.
http://web.ntown.net/~apeck/index.htm

Julie

"Theo Asir" writes:

I can't find my original source but
if you google, a few sites do recommend
this as a conservative precaution.

http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/she...ediseases.html

http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/roses/disease-disease.html

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:57:28 GMT, "Henry Kuska"
wrote:

Shiva said: "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."

My reply. Oh?
http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/tom_virus.html

Oh please, Henry! You are a scientist, no? Retired, maybe, but once a
scientist always a scientist. Yet you are claiming that a second-hand
tale told by Ann Mansker about a SINGLE study--in other words a study
that has not been replicated anywhere, ever--in which some rows of
multiflora, some virused, some not, were planted close to one another
and trimmed with hedgetrimmers, and in a couple of years showed a ONE
to TWO percent incidence of the virus in plants ALLEGEDLY virus free
at the beginning of the study

is proof that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread in our gardens?

Is this what you are saying?

In addition to all the tacit problems with this statement, how do we
know--how did THEY know the original plants that were allegedly virus
free really were?

Thanks for the information, and please take this in the spirit in
which it is offered--that of a good lively debate.

I have noticed in Gardenweb and other fora that there are people who
get very, shall we say, emotional about RMV, and they tend to be
alarmists who love to exaggerate its ill effects.

It is going to take more than the above to convince me that it is
going to spread in my garden.



Henry Kuska, retired

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

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:01:53 GMT, (Shiva) wrote:

Correction-- should read "Yet you are claiming that a second-hand
tale told by Ann Mansker about a SINGLE study [...] is EVIDENCE that
Rose Mosaic Virus can spread in our gardens?"

Oh please, Henry! You are a scientist, no? Retired, maybe, but once a
scientist always a scientist. Yet you are claiming that a second-hand
tale told by Ann Mansker about a SINGLE study--in other words a study
that has not been replicated anywhere, ever--in which some rows of
multiflora, some virused, some not, were planted close to one another
and trimmed with hedgetrimmers, and in a couple of years showed a ONE
to TWO percent incidence of the virus in plants ALLEGEDLY virus free
at the beginning of the study

is proof that Rose Mosaic Virus can spread in our gardens?

Is this what you are saying?

In addition to all the tacit problems with this statement, how do we
know--how did THEY know the original plants that were allegedly virus
free really were?

Thanks for the information, and please take this in the spirit in
which it is offered--that of a good lively debate.

I have noticed in Gardenweb and other fora that there are people who
get very, shall we say, emotional about RMV, and they tend to be
alarmists who love to exaggerate its ill effects.

It is going to take more than the above to convince me that it is
going to spread in my garden.



Henry Kuska, retired

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

"Unique Too" wrote in message
...
I found the following errors in the sites you mentioned. When a site
contains
two items of misinformation I start to doubt the reliabilty of the rest of
their information. Cleaning your pruners between plants isn't a bad idea,
but
since symptoms of RMV may not show up for several years you would have to
disinfect everytime you work on a different plant.

"Mosaic:
snip
Control:
snip
Plant virus resistant roses if possible. "


There is no such thing as an RMV resistant rose. If you graft an infected
root
to a healthy cutting, it will be infected.

True.
I assume they meant virus free stock.

I realize this may change your cultural practice
but seriously, sterilizing between plants is good
advice for other diseases as well. most notably
crown gall.

Also this is such a grey area. When
in doubt sterilize. you can try to get tetanus
deliberately for years and not get it, but
it takes just one random infection in literally
millions of tries to kill you.

"Rosette and Witches Broom:
snip
Control:
The exact cause of this disease is unknown. Infected plants cannot be
cured.
Try to control insects, particularly leaf hoppers and plant hoppers....."

RRD is caused by a mite. And there is an insecticide which kills the
mites
that spread the disease. See Ann Peck's site for more details.
http://web.ntown.net/~apeck/index.htm

Its not 'caused' by a mite, its spread by it.
But no one knows the cause really. probably a virus.
I realize ann peck is a supposed expert
by this is truly laughable.

First the mites are too small to be seen.
So how do you know you have a
mite infestation. Usually when the
disease manifests, its too late.

Second if it is for preventing further
spread in your garden RRD is really
a rural garden disease. It comes from
elsewhere on the wind. how do you
cut off the source.

Near where I live RRD has a strong rural
presence. but Multiflora is becoming resistant
and will no doubt continue to act as a carrier.

Slash & burn is probably the only effective
method available.


--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City

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."
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/

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:19:48 GMT, "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 looked it up. It is not in my dictionary. Have you got a source for
me?


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..

So you DO consider the link you furnished, in which you or Paul quote
Ann describing a single, never repeated study in which 1 to 2 % of
allegedly virus-free multiflora plants were allegedly infected via
pruners or perhaps simple *proximity* to be "evidence that rose mosaic
virus can be spread in our gardens."

I am surprised. Not only do I not consider it to be sufficient to
convince me, I do not consider it evidence at all. I imagine you must
run yourself ragged keeping up with every unreplicated study that
comes up.





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."
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." "
-------------------------------------------------------------

I think not, as the above apparently does not treat rose mosaic virus.



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

Tell me why it should. Please. I am trying to learn here.




Henry Kuska, retired

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

Shiva: http://www.realdictionary.com/A/dir/atall.asp

--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/
"Shiva" wrote in message
s.com...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:19:48 GMT, "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 looked it up. It is not in my dictionary. Have you got a source for
me?

Henry Kuska wrote:


http://www.realdictionary.com/E/dir/evidence.asp


Thanks, Henry, you're a peach. Here's one for you:


http://www.realdictionary.com/E/dir/evidence.asp


You know that most serious scientists would not consider a single
study by even the most reputable group to be evidence of anything, now
don't you? Of course you do.

Shiva said: " You know that most serious scientists would not consider a
single study by even the most reputable group to be evidence of anything,
now
don't you? Of course you do."

No, I do not. If the results of a study are not evidence, then what are
they? How can you state the above when you just gave a link for definitions
of "evidence"? Are you mixing up the concept of "accepted fact" and
"evidence"?

You may want to reexamine the following (please look for the appearance of
the word "evidence" in both links):
"The two links below address natural spread of RMV:
http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/tom_virus.html

and

http://www.goldcoastrose.org/pdf/clean-stock.pdf

This is what the U.C. Davis rose virus cleaning document states (the
goldcoastrose link above):
"The viruses that cause rose mosaic disease are most commonly spread through
propagation procedures such as budding an infected scion onto a healthy
understock, or a healthy scion to an infected understock. Disease symptoms
are not always obvious, which is why the use of virus-tested planting stock
is advantageous. There is some evidence that rose mosaic spreads in
commercial rose plantings. UC researchers are presently looking for possible
explanations.""

--
Henry Kuska, retired

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

From: "Henry Kuska" :

Shiva said: " You know that most serious scientists would not consider a
single study by even the most reputable group to be evidence of anything,
now
don't you? Of course you do."

No, I do not. If the results of a study are not evidence, then what are
they?

Silly man. You are playing semantics here, the last refuge of those
who have no rational let upon which to stand. The phrase was "evidence
that Rose Mosaic Virus may be transmitted in our gardens," for one
thing. Not just "evidence." The study you cited might just provide
evidence that the guys doing it didn't know what the hell they were
doing. In that sense, any study does indeed provide evidence--of
something, even if it is the sloppiness or stupidity of those
conducting it.


How can you state the above when you just gave a link for definitions
of "evidence"? Are you mixing up the concept of "accepted fact" and
"evidence"?

I think you are using the word incorrectly, and you think I am using
the word incorrectly. The fact is, any idiot knows that the single
study you cited can not be considered "evidence that Rose Mosaic Virus
may be transmitted in our gardens." Why? Because something occuring
once may simply be a fluke. This is why real scientists look for
replication of studies, examine the scientific methods used,
investigate the use of controls and the credentials of the body that
conducted the so-called study. For you to claim to be a scientist and
yet pretend that anything you find on the Internet is a study that
provides valid evidence for the topic at hand leads me to suspect that
that you might just be one of the Rose Mosaic Alarmists I have run
into before.

Meanwhile, this hairsplitting is getting on my nerves, so I imagine
others are sick of it too.

In addition to the fact that I do not believe any single study that
has never been replicated anywhere can be considered to provide
evidence that Rose Mosaic Virus may be transmitted in our gardens, the
study you cited did not convince me.



You may want to reexamine the following (please look for the appearance of
the word "evidence" in both links):
"The two links below address natural spread of RMV:
http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/tom_virus.html

and

http://www.goldcoastrose.org/pdf/clean-stock.pdf

This is what the U.C. Davis rose virus cleaning document states (the
goldcoastrose link above):
"The viruses that cause rose mosaic disease are most commonly spread through
propagation procedures such as budding an infected scion onto a healthy
understock, or a healthy scion to an infected understock. Disease symptoms
are not always obvious, which is why the use of virus-tested planting stock
is advantageous. There is some evidence that rose mosaic spreads in
commercial rose plantings. UC researchers are presently looking for possible
explanations.""

--
Henry Kuska, retired

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

From: "Henry Kuska" :

Shiva said: " You know that most serious scientists would not consider a
single study by even the most reputable group to be evidence of anything,
now
don't you? Of course you do."

No, I do not. If the results of a study are not evidence, then what are
they?

Silly man. You are playing semantics here, the last refuge of those
who have no rational let upon which to stand. The phrase was "evidence
that Rose Mosaic Virus may be transmitted in our gardens," for one
thing. Not just "evidence." The study you cited might just provide
evidence that the guys doing it didn't know what the hell they were
doing. In that sense, any study does indeed provide evidence--of
something, even if it is the sloppiness or stupidity of those
conducting it.


How can you state the above when you just gave a link for definitions
of "evidence"? Are you mixing up the concept of "accepted fact" and
"evidence"?

I think you are using the word incorrectly, and you think I am using
the word incorrectly. The fact is, any idiot knows that the single
study you cited can not be considered "evidence that Rose Mosaic Virus
may be transmitted in our gardens." Why? Because something occuring
once may simply be a fluke. This is why real scientists look for
replication of studies, examine the scientific methods used,
investigate the use of controls and the credentials of the body that
conducted the so-called study. For you to claim to be a scientist and
yet pretend that anything you find on the Internet is a study that
provides valid evidence for the topic at hand leads me to suspect that
that you might just be one of the Rose Mosaic Alarmists I have run
into before.

Meanwhile, this hairsplitting is getting on my nerves, so I imagine
others are sick of it too.

In addition to the fact that I do not believe any single study that
has never been replicated anywhere can be considered to provide
evidence that Rose Mosaic Virus may be transmitted in our gardens, the
study you cited did not convince me.



You may want to reexamine the following (please look for the appearance of
the word "evidence" in both links):
"The two links below address natural spread of RMV:
http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/tom_virus.html

and

http://www.goldcoastrose.org/pdf/clean-stock.pdf

This is what the U.C. Davis rose virus cleaning document states (the
goldcoastrose link above):
"The viruses that cause rose mosaic disease are most commonly spread through
propagation procedures such as budding an infected scion onto a healthy
understock, or a healthy scion to an infected understock. Disease symptoms
are not always obvious, which is why the use of virus-tested planting stock
is advantageous. There is some evidence that rose mosaic spreads in
commercial rose plantings. UC researchers are presently looking for possible
explanations.""

--
Henry Kuska, retired

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

In article , Henry Kuska
wrote:

Cass, your question: "Have any hybridizers reported virused seedlings
produced from virused
pollen and/or seed parent?" was answered in my post. Yes.
"Ping Lim, an All American Rose winning hybridizer, stated in
rec.gardens.roses that he has observed virused seedlings from virused
parents.
He is not the first hybridizer to report that some of his seedlings
were virused. Harvey Davidson reported in 1988 (Davidson, H., The American
Rose Magazine, volumn 29, page 16, (1988)) that some of his seedlings were
virused and that he had heard, in a recent lecture, Dr. Dennison Morey state
that rose mosaic can be transferred through pollen. Dr. Morey was at one
time the head of the breeding program for Jackson and Perkins."

I missed it. Thanks. And the information about UC's hedge trimming
experiment is discouraging as well. Then there are the reports about
heat-treated, so-called virus-cleaned, varieties showing symptons after
a number of years. Bad stuff. One wonders what percentage of garden
roses is clean!

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/

In article , Unique Too
wrote:


There is no such thing as an RMV resistant rose. If you graft an
infected root to a healthy cutting, it will be infected.

I do not know that this is true at all. Rosarians have observed for
years that some virused roses are weak, sickly and damaged, while
others are vigorous, floriferous and viable. Really, there are too many
variables to know exactly what is going on, whether the really sickly
ones have RMV of both the rootstock and the scion, whether some of the
RMViruses are more virulent than others, whether the problems are
caused by rootstock incompatibility. Until testing is more accessible,
we can only speculate what is going on.