Get a free photobucket account. Photos from your computer will be uploaded to folders you create at photobucket. Under each photo a string of (3) "codes"/ HTML "tags" are visible. The middle or second one you simply copy/paste and drop it anywhere inside this box.

Here's my photobucket link - now "I" can see the (3) tags, hopefully you can as well. If not, you will be able to when you create your own account. Here it is:

Photobucket Dax

First image on that page. I'll copy then paste and here's the image: One more thing David - your images (on disk, saved in folders on your computer, etc - should be 640 x 480 (or vice-versa) to accomodate the screen size for maximum viewing.

Get to it!

Later.

{{gwi:1050755}}

>it's quite impressive for the mid west

??

I think the MO botanical garden is impressive without qualification....and why would you say "for the midwest"?

As a botanical gardens as a whole I ageee but as far as Japanese maples I would assume there are much better collections on both coasts where the weather is a bit more condusive to JM survival ...at least more varieties. But then they may have more varieties than I am aware of in St Louis if they were properly marked or marked at all. As I stated in my original post...they WEREN'T. From the pics Dax posted from DC of the national arboretum it seemed a FAR superior collection of mature JM's . And I might add in the STL Japanese gardens where most of the JM's are NONE of the plants ( JM's or otherise) are post marked PERIOD...I visited the STL bg last Wed. and my neck is still sore from peering over and under branches to see which cultivar was which in many cases totally in vain since they wern't marked ...David

David, did you enjoy them even though they weren't tagged? Sure, you'd like to know the variety, but it shouldn't detract too much from the enjoyment of seeing them. I agree though that a botanical garden should strive as much as possible to have their trees labled. It's very difficult when trees come in from different sources and may be uncorrectly labled. Add to that, committees, different leadership every year or so and volunteer help and you've got a mess on your hands. It's difficult enough just labeling our own gardens, isn't it? I'm sure they are doing their best and there is always room for improvement, but it's not worth getting up so much steam over it in my opinion.

Yes I Always enjoy the St. Louis BG. ..I've visited many times over the years... And I am not steamed ...But in reality they should not specify it as "botanical" but rather a simlpe garden if plants and trees are just placed there and not identified. Now there may be a master map ...thats something I will check into...but I think reguardless of volunteers, donations etc it is ashame to not have stuff identified and in fact not proper if they wish to keep the "botanical" monicer. There is nothing "scientific" about a garden with plants not identified it becomes a simple garden or PARK...therefore it is improper IMHO to call it such.That DOES not take away from the beauty of it or make it less of a place to visit but In my opinion it is NOT a true botanical garden and they do have a resposinbilty especially since they charge and are well endowed to have it better organised and tagged if they wish it to be "botannical". David

I agree. Maybe you can point that out to them. All would benefit.

I need to do some labeling myself.

Some of the trees in the Mo. Botanical Garden in St. Louis were planted almost 130 years ago. I believe the Japanese Garden was a gift by the government of Japan after the 1904 World's Fair in St. Louis. I'm not apologizing for lack of labeling...I don't think. I suspect there's a good chance some of the trees you saw are very, very old.

Does anyone know? It would be interesting to find out.

Terry