Need help identifying perennial

Dear Newsgroup,

I have been unable to identify the perennial whose picture is posted on the following newsgroup, under the name "unknown perennial".

alt.binaries.pictures.gardens

I can give a number of details - hopefully between the picture and the details someone knows what this plant is.

The original plant grew in West Virginia - my mother had this in her yard for many years, she claims. Last fall we dug it up and moved to my home in Missouri. She calls it a vining plant, but so far it hasn't shown any signs of vining.

The plant is about two feet high. I have it in a shady location, as she said it was growing in such a location in West Virginia. So far it seems to like the shade. It bloomed in April or early May - when the picture was taken. Since then, the flowers have fallen off, but no sign of fruit.

The leaves are glossy green, about 3" long and 1" wide, opposite, simple edges, come to a point on both ends. There is a short leaf stalk.

The flowers are fairly small, perhaps 1/2" across, with five white petals. They are arranged in a loose umbel, issuing from the leaf axils, as you can see in the picture. The stamens aren't at all obvious - in fact, where I would expect stamens is a compact compartmented button-line structure, pale yellow in color.

The plant has a loose, rambling habit. There is nothing for it to climb on, perhaps that's why it hasn't shown any vining tendencies. The branches barely support themselves, which is why it isn't any taller.

Disregard the narrow leaves in the picture - apparently a lily of some kind came along for the ride. This unknown lily didn't bloom. My mother suspects it is a day lily; these don't do well in shade.

Any help will be appreciated. I've looked in my usual reference sources and even tried some online keys, without any luck.

TIA,

Guy Bradley Chesterfield MO zone 6

Reply to
Guy Bradley
Loading thread data ...

So where is the picture?

I see neither your name nor the picture there.

If the file size was too large it may have been rejected by the server.

Reply to
Cereoid-UR12-

It *is* a large file (440k), but it's there.

Reply to
Frogleg

Not to be argumentative, but I've never heard that servers which carry rec.gardens *don't* carry the corresponding binary. Or maybe the folk who can't reference the pictures just don't complain (highly unlikely, considering how we complain about *everything* :-) I haven't found it at all "rare" that pictures referenced here were currently available. Of course, if I've recently "marked read" and purged the binary group, and really want to see the pic, I have to go back and reload current headers.

alt.binaries.pictures.gardens is the default place to post pictures. Own web space or various album sites are fine, too. What's *not* OK is posting binaries to text newsgroups.

Reply to
Frogleg

There is nothing "corresponding" between rec.gardens and a.b.p.g. except the coincidental fact that both contain the string "gardens" in their name.

If you don't understand why that is so, then you probably don't understand the difference between alt. groups and regular groups, in terms of how they are created.

Generally there are two types of news servers, public and private. Public ones are those that anyone can connect to over the Internet, usually for a monthly fee. They tend to carry all or most alt. and binaries groups because they want to attract customers. Private servers are for use on private networks, for example, many of us use news servers provided by our employers. These almost never carry binary groups because it eats too much disk space, and rarely carry alt. groups because of corporate policy (too many dirty pix, not work-related).

If you only use public news servers, I can see how you might get the impression that everyone in the world can see alt.binaries.* groups. It's just not so, however.

- Alex

Reply to
Alexander Pensky

How about your own ISP?

They have webspace for you already!

Reply to
Some One

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.