>I cannot cite a publication on the benefits of leaving bulbs to seed, but >empirical testing and observation will bear it out. A private correspondent >calls deadheading an old wives' story, and to my mind it is what I call a >'Gardener's Boy' job, invented by head gardeners to keep idle hands busy, >but not strictly necessary. Dear all; I tend to agree with John about some long time practices which do not make ecological or biological sense. People here still braid daffodil foliage weeks before they are ready to go dormant, mow herbaceous peony foliage when it isn't attractive and cut iris fans down to stubs in July. Even as foliage on all these go dormant they are still processing sugars back into the roots and even ragged foliage may still be photosynthesizing. Logically why should seed production be so harmful to bulb development? The longer it takes to produce seed, the longer foliage is present in general and that has to a goods thing to over all energy production. If seed production were harmful, why would bulbs produce so much seed when they could vegetatively propagate as well. And it also figures that sterile hybrids would be even more vigorously and propagate more readily by vegetative means - both larger and more bulbs and divisions. I hope I am not suggesting that there are instances which might work either way (pro or con), but I think dead heading is mostly done for reasons of aesthetics not for its biological impact and for control of too vigorous seeding about. Does someone have empirical data pro or con? Best Jim W. -- Dr. James W. Waddick 8871 NW Brostrom Rd. Kansas City Missouri 64152-2711 USA Ph. 816-746-1949 E-fax 419-781-8594 Zone 5 Record low -23F Summer 100F +