Cass asked: "What does this mean, "associated with their long existence?" ".

I have the actual paper, but it does not say anymore about this. I "guess"
that one or both of the following may be what they mean (the translations
that foreigh papers go through often leads to problems of this type): 1)
that the minatures were allowed to keep their flowers (i.e. they were not
pruned) so there were many opportunities for virused pollen contamination by
bees; or 2) the minatures tested were old plants that had many years
exposure to the 1 or 2 % transmission rate.

Explanation 2 was given by a European member of one of the forums as an
explanation for the high virus percentage found in old Europen rose gardens.


--
Henry Kuska, retired

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

Shiva, scientists communicate in Formal English. I do not feel that your
original statement is defendable in Formal English. ("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.").

I offered you the opportunity to revise your statement (with a suggested
revision): " 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.".

I also asked you to reference what part of the dictionary definition of
"evidence" you felt supports your use of the word (I referred you to
examples of how others were using "evidence").

I have presented the viewpoints of a number of respected scientists,
hybridizers and the Royal Botanical Garden, Sydney . Your attempt to
question (attack) my scientific judgment is disappointing; are you attacking
the scientific judgement of the above also?

Your statement: "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 ..." deserves comment.

The above quote has a number of words but what do they collectively mean in
Formal English?

For example, you use the word "pretend":
http://www.realdictionary.com/p/dir/pretend.asp
then you use "anything"
http://www.realdictionary.com/a/dir/anything.asp

???????????????????????????????????????????

I was pleased to see that you placed the word "valid" in front of evidence -
"valid evidence" is a completely different statement than "no evidence at
all".
"Valid" is a subjective term: http://www.realdictionary.com/v/dir/valid.asp
(definition of subjective:
http://www.realdictionary.com/s/dir/subjective.asp i.e. what you consider
valid, someone else may not and vice versa.

If I am interpreting correctly what you are now stating, you are now
approaching my suggested revision to your original statement. To save
scrolling here it is again:

" 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..


Henry Kuska, retired

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

"Henry Kuska" wrote in message news:07QYa.65537
...
Shiva, scientists communicate in Formal English. I do not feel that your
original statement is defendable in Formal English. ("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.").

Henry, I have already stated that it is obvious that we disagree about the "proper" use of the
word "evidence." As I'm sure you noted, there were several definitions. As I am also sure you
noted, I said that I am not going to play around with you about semantics because you cannot bear
to admit that you are wrong. It was ONE study. In response to my statement, you posted a link that
contained this:

"The following comments are an addendum to the Virus article written by Jeri Jennings, posted by
Tom Liggett in a discussion group as a follow-up to said article:

U.C. Davis FPMS has LONG (!!!!!) reported that "virus-free" (read that heat treated/indexed)
plants that were grown in insect-segregated greenhouses saw the spontaneous re-occurrence of virus
after five years. In my view, there is NO way to remove Mosaic (and mayhaps other) virus(es) from
plants once they re infected. Say what you want, but I am a rose grower of long standing that
worked in HUGE clinical research labs. Am I infallible? Hardly but I know just how small (and
tenacious) some types of viruses are. IF they are not a type of a virus (such as them as cause
influenza) that dies as a naturally-occurring end stages a part of its life cycle, then it is in
said host organism forever (at least with today's technology).

BTW; what some folks that have a vested interest (MONEY!!!!!) in virus in rose say PRIVATELY, is
MUCH different from what they say PUBLICLY (don't ask for details on this last part, as I ain't
givin' out no names). Tom

Also made were the following remarks by Ann Mansker:

It's an excellent article, but I have one caveat. There is some evidence that virus could possibly
be transmitted plant to plant. I had someone from UCD's Foundation Plant Materials Service come
and talk to Sierra Foothills, and he mentioned some preliminary work they were doing to see if
virus could be introduced into a plant via unsterilized cutting tools. The work was funded by an
association of commercial rose producers, who were puzzled to find low (1 - 2%) but consistent
emergence of virused plants in their supposedly clean blocks.

FPMS planted rows of R. multiflora (which shows distinct virus symptoms when it's infected), and
introduced virus into alternating plants. Over the course of the year, they cut the plants back
with hedge trimmers, just going straight across all the plants without regard to their virus
status. Over time (not sure if it was one year, or more, can't remember), they found virus in 1 -
2% of the plants which had not been innoculated. I can't remember how they eliminated the
possibility of root grafting (maybe the plants were too far apart?), but the speaker indicated
that this very limited and preliminary result was cause for thought. Ann M.


This website made possible by a grant from the Uncommon Rose"

Now then, the source of the information or, as you say, "study", coming third or fourth hand, is
allegedly University of California--UCD, as Mansker puts it. This is what I was responding to, not
anything from any other agency. It was a ridiculous link for you to post as "evidence that Rose
Mosaic Virus can be spread in our gardens," and you know it. Even if this alleged study was
legitimate, it is ONLY ONE STUDY, and no reasonable person would accept that as "evidence that
Rose Mosaic Virus can be spread in our gardens." Particularly since it showed a ONE TO TWO PERCENT
incidence of "infection" of plants we do not have any way of knowing did not have RMV to begin
with.

You clearly cannot find another study that replicates these results or even comes close, so you
want to argue more semantics.

No. You may be retired, but I am not.

Until you can produce another study that even begins to suggest that RMV can spread in our
gardens, you have not produced any evidence AT ALL that it can.

Learn to admit it when you're wrong. I do it all the time. It is no big deal.

P.S. I am glad to see you posting again.

Shiva said: "As I'm sure you noted, there were several definitions."
My reply: yes, and in order for me to see if there is any justification to
your original statement, I need to know which meaning you are using?
Remember, you provided the link to that set of definitions for "evidence".
This is a very straight forward request.

Your continuing "habit" of reading the motive of other posters is very
interesting. I doubt that you were instructed to do that in your Formal
English studies.

Your statement:
"Until you can produce another study that even begins to suggest that RMV
can spread in our gardens, you have not produced any evidence AT ALL that
it can."

contradicts itself.

How can you use "another" (
http://www.realdictionary.com/a/dir/anothera.asp ) and then state "you have
not produced any evidence AT ALL"? In case you are unable to open the
dictionary link, here is what it says:
"another(a) - different, some other, additional
Detailed description:-
3 Dictionary Entries found
---------------------------
1) s :distinctly separate from the first
---------------------------
2) s :any of various alternatives; some other
---------------------------"


..

Henry Kuska, retired

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

Addition to last post.

The third meaning was dropped. It is:
3) s ne more or an added

--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/
"Henry Kuska" wrote in message
.. .
Shiva said: "As I'm sure you noted, there were several definitions."
My reply: yes, and in order for me to see if there is any justification to
your original statement, I need to know which meaning you are using?
Remember, you provided the link to that set of definitions for "evidence".
This is a very straight forward request.

Your continuing "habit" of reading the motive of other posters is very
interesting. I doubt that you were instructed to do that in your Formal
English studies.

Your statement:
"Until you can produce another study that even begins to suggest that RMV
can spread in our gardens, you have not produced any evidence AT ALL that
it can."

contradicts itself.

How can you use "another" (
http://www.realdictionary.com/a/dir/anothera.asp ) and then state "you
have
not produced any evidence AT ALL"? In case you are unable to open the
dictionary link, here is what it says:
"another(a) - different, some other, additional
Detailed description:-
3 Dictionary Entries found
---------------------------
1) s :distinctly separate from the first
---------------------------
2) s :any of various alternatives; some other
---------------------------"


.

Henry Kuska, retired

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

"Henry Kuska" writes:

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

I missed that one the first time around. Where is it stated RMV was found in
naturally occuring wild roses?

Julie

"Theo Asir" writes:

"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 didn't assume that at all. We do use the term disease resistant when
referring to either blackspot or powdery mildew so it seems logical to me they
meant there were RMV resistant roses.



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.

You're right on this one, it is SPREAD by a mite, not caused by. That was
definitly my error.

Julie

In article , Cass
writes:

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.

Interesting. Are you saying is an RMV infected rose which remains vigoruous,
floriferous and viable "may" be RMV resistant? That is possible.

This entire RMV thread has been most informative.

Julie

Julie wrote:
In article , Cass
writes:

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.

Interesting. Are you saying is an RMV infected rose which remains vigoruous,
floriferous and viable "may" be RMV resistant? That is possible.

This entire RMV thread has been most informative.

Julie

I agree, this has been a great thread. I have only one clear case of Rose Mosaic Virus in my
gardens,and it is the Arena Sonia Rykiel I got at a local grocery store a couple
of years back. I say clear case because when stressed by drought and
heat it showed the CLASSIC pattern--not any deficiency, not over-watering, etc.
What is odd about this rose is that it is flourishing in these very
wet conditons we have had this year. It has stayed in bloom and has
had very little blackspot when compared with my other grafted roses, and
has more leaves than any but my ownroot Austins and Don Juan. I KNOW this
rose is virused, but under adverse condtions, with no protection against
insects or black spot, it has done very well when compared with my other
roses. Lends credence to Cass's comments.

This quote was made, in a previous posting he

"The following comments are an addendum to the Virus article written by Jeri
Jennings, posted by
Tom Liggett in a discussion group as a follow-up to said article:

U.C. Davis FPMS has LONG (!!!!!) reported that "virus-free" (read that heat
treated/indexed)
plants that were grown in insect-segregated greenhouses saw the spontaneous
re-occurrence of virus
after five years. In my view, there is NO way to remove Mosaic (and mayhaps
other) virus(es) from
plants once they re infected. "

I should point out that after that statement was made, I had a flood of emails
about it, so I called up the folks at FPMS. Talked to several of them,
including Mike Cunningham, head of their rose program. I was assured,
absolutely, that no knowledgeable FPMS employee had ever said any such thing,
and that it was certainly not true, in their experience.

So, either the quote is a direct lie, or (more probably) a gross
misunderstanding of some other statement, enlarged through several generations
of gossip.

Malcolm Manners

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

Julie asked: " I missed that one the first time around. Where is it stated
RMV was found in naturally occuring wild roses?"

First, to avoid confusion among the readers of this thread, this quote is
not from my original link. In that link the statements that I provided are
the following two:

1) "In a 1962 American Rose Annual article the following is stated: "L.C.
Cochran found two roses in California naturally infected with the virus of
peach ring spot." (Peach ring spot is another name for PNRSV, the main
component of RMV in the U.S.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
2) "AND for other rose viruses there are papers that have found "non Rose
Rosette Disease virus" - (RRD is a story in itself, it also started with
"research" stating that it would not spread) in other naturally occurring
wild roses in the U.S., and seed transmission and nematode transmission in
other countries."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The following is a two part expansion of some of what is behind the concise
statements in my link (I kept the information in the link focused on PNRSV,
the main component of what collectively is called RSV):
Part 1) Dr. L C. Cochran's 1972 American Rose Annual article: "VIRUSES
INFECTING ROSES"
Approximately nine separate virus diseases affecting roses have been
recorded. The one most commonly occurring on roses has been loosely
described under such names as: typical mosaic, yellow mosaic, streak, rose
viruses 1, 2, & 3, vein banding, line pattern, chlorotic mottle, prunus
ringspot, etc. Research data delimitating this group is still incomplete and
until completed will be referred to under the name rose mosaic.
Other viruses which have been used to infect roses or have been recovered
from naturally infected plants include: (1) Tomato ringspot virus,
transmitted by the nematode Xiphinema americanum, occurring sporadically in
western United States; (2) Streak, vector unknown, occurring sporadically
but latent in some cultivars; (3) Arabis mosaic virus, common in roses in
Europe, transmitted by the nematode X. diversicaudatum; (4) Strawberry
latent ringspot virus transmitted by the same nematode; (5) Apple mosaic
virus reported from Europe and Australia; (6) Tobacco ringspot virus,
reported from Iowa; (7) Witches' broom virus, reported from Nebraska and
California; (8) Rose wilt virus, reported from Australia and a new disease
occurring in California, resembling rose wilt, which causes a disease
tentatively called spring dwarf. Without doubt a careful study might reveal
some other viruses, such as Tobacco mosaic and tobacco necrosis in rose."
Note the use of: "or have been recovered from naturally infected plants" and
statements such as:
"Tomato ringspot virus, transmitted by the nematode Xiphinema americanum,
occurring sporadically in western United States".
Also note, although he numbers the statements as if the references are
provided, the references were not given.
AND
Part 2) The published paper by R. H. Converse and A. B. Bartlett, Plant
Disease Reporter, volumn 63, pages 441-444, (1979). They studied 21 wild
rose plants from 17 Oregon, U.S.A. locations. 5 plants out of the 20 that
were tested by agar-gel diffusion (1 plant was not tested) were found to
have tobacco streak virus ( see:
http://image.fs.uidaho.edu/vide/descr811.htm ). The positive testing plants
came from 4 of the 17 sites (2 positive out of 2 tested from one site; 1 out
of 1 tested from another site; 1 out of 3 from another; and 1 out of 1 from
another).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To minimize scrolling I have reproduced the literature introduction to my
original link (which defines what viruses are considered part of what is
being discussed in the scientific world). The word "ilarvius" for our
purpose can be thought of as just a more fancy way of saying "virus".

Title: Roses: virus and virus-like diseases.
Author: Lisa-V
Published in: Colture-Protette. 1998, 27: 5 Supplement, 35-38; 14 ref.
Language of article: Italian
Abstract: "Notes are given on the viruses and virus-like diseases that are
known to affect roses around the world. The most common and widespread virus
disease is rose mosaic, associated especially with prunus necrotic ringspot
ilarvirus (PNRSV), apple mosaic ilarvirus (ApMV), arabis mosaic nepovirus
(ArMV) and strawberry latent ringspot nepovirus (SLRV), but also with
tobacco ringspot nepovirus, tobacco streak ilarvius and tomato ringspot
nepovirus. Tobacco mosaic tobamovirus and an unidentified closterovirus are
found sporadically. The virus-like diseases of unknown aetiology include
rose ring pattern, rose flower break, rose streak, rose rosette (or rose
witches' broom), rose leaf curl, rose spring dwarf and rose wilt. Other
disorders are caused by hormonal imbalances or other types of
incompatibility between the graft and the rootstock of unknown aetiology,
such as rose bud proliferation, rose dieback (or rose stunt) and frisure.
Techniques for diagnosing viruses in roses and methods for their control are
described." (The actual articles are copyrighted. This is why one will only
see the abstract on public forums.)

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/
"Unique Too" wrote in message
...
"Henry Kuska" writes:

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

I missed that one the first time around. Where is it stated RMV was found
in
naturally occuring wild roses?

Julie

MMMavocado wrote:

This quote was made, in a previous posting he

"The following comments are an addendum to the Virus article written by Jeri
Jennings, posted by Tom Liggett in a discussion group as a follow-up to said article:
U.C. Davis FPMS has LONG (!!!!!) reported that "virus-free" (read that heat
treated/indexed) plants that were grown in insect-segregated greenhouses saw the spontaneous
re-occurrence of virus after five years. In my view, there is NO way to remove Mosaic (and
mayhaps other) virus(es) from plants once they re infected. "

I should point out that after that statement was made, I had a flood of emails
about it, so I called up the folks at FPMS. Talked to several of them,
including Mike Cunningham, head of their rose program. I was assured,
absolutely, that no knowledgeable FPMS employee had ever said any such thing,
and that it was certainly not true, in their experience.

So, either the quote is a direct lie, or (more probably) a gross
misunderstanding of some other statement, enlarged through several generations
of gossip.

Malcolm Manners

Thanks for letting us know. Do you know anything about the "study" Henry said
Paul said Anne said (!) UCD did that Henry thinks is evidence that RMV can
spread in the garden?

I looked up the certification document of the European and
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization which covers rose virus
certification, see:

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/virus-testing.htm

In article , Henry
Kuska wrote:

I looked up the certification document of the European and
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization which covers rose virus
certification, see:

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/virus-testing.htm

Thanks for all the information. Have you considered an article in the
American Rose Annual? There is never enough content in ARS pubs for my
tastes.

Cass, concerning your suggestion to publish an article on the subject in the
American Rose Annual: I assume that the U. Calif. Davis research is nearing
completion. I hope that they would then write such an article as they are
the "horse's mouth".

I "expect" that they are preparing something for the conference covering
virus diseases of ornamental plants which is scheduled for 2004. (Often,
researchers try to present their results at conferences such as this one in
order to assure that the work gets maximum exposure among those working in
the field.)
.. March 9-13, 2004, Taichung (Taiwan): XI International Symposium on Virus
Diseases of Ornamental Plants. Info: Dr. Chin-An Chang, Taiwan Agricultural
Research Institute (TARI), 189 Chung-Cheng Road, Wufeng, Taichung 413,
Taiwan. Phone: (886)423302803, Fax: (886)423331089, email:
or Dr. Anne Marie van Zaaijen, Duinroos 35, 2202
DB Noordwijk, Netherlands. Phone: (31)71-3618182, Fax: (31)71-3617591,
email: web:
http://www.tari.gov.tw/isvdop-11/index.html

See:

http://www.ishs.org/calendar/index.htm

Henry Kuska, retired

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