We recently bought a Lobelia Queen Victoria and was advised by the
nurseryman to cut it down to ground level after flowering to encourage
regrowth.
But upon reflection did he mean cut the leaves and all, or just the
flower spikes ?
And does this apply to all perennials ?
p. pleater.

On 22/6/07 15:28, in article , "p. pleater"
wrote:

We recently bought a Lobelia Queen Victoria and was advised by the
nurseryman to cut it down to ground level after flowering to encourage
regrowth.
But upon reflection did he mean cut the leaves and all, or just the
flower spikes ?
And does this apply to all perennials ?
p. pleater.


Just the flower spikes. In autumn, it will die down naturally, so let it do
that and then it will pop up again next year.


--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
(remove weeds from address)

"p. pleater" wrote ...
We recently bought a Lobelia Queen Victoria and was advised by the
nurseryman to cut it down to ground level after flowering to encourage
regrowth.
But upon reflection did he mean cut the leaves and all, or just the flower
spikes ?
And does this apply to all perennials ?

Lobelia "Queen Vic" (or as I prefer, Lobelia cardinalis, the more
descriptive old name ) loves water so is usually grown as a bog plant. That
said, I have a large pot full of seedlings I saved whilst weeding but they
are not growing as tall as those in our pond. To stop them falling over in a
wind they will need some support, link-stakes etc.
I always let them just die back naturally in the autumn (due to frost which
they can't take much of) but where they flop over and touch the water they
grow roots and shoots so that is a good way to propagate.

Is there a brighter red flower? I don't think so.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
17mls W. of London.UK

On 22 Jun, 18:00, "Bob Hobden" wrote:
"p. pleater" wrote ...

We recently bought a Lobelia Queen Victoria and was advised by the
nurseryman to cut it down to ground level after flowering to encourage
regrowth.
But upon reflection did he mean cut the leaves and all, or just the flower
spikes ?
And does this apply to all perennials ?

Lobelia "Queen Vic" (or as I prefer, Lobelia cardinalis, the more
descriptive old name ) loves water so is usually grown as a bog plant. That
said, I have a large pot full of seedlings I saved whilst weeding but they
are not growing as tall as those in our pond. To stop them falling over in a
wind they will need some support, link-stakes etc.
I always let them just die back naturally in the autumn (due to frost which
they can't take much of) but where they flop over and touch the water they
grow roots and shoots so that is a good way to propagate.

Is there a brighter red flower? I don't think so.

I thought that 'Queen Victoria' was distinct from the species L.
cardinalis (I think I read in GST's 'Perennial Garden Plants' that it
resulted from a cross between L. cardinalis and something else). But
apparently it's now considered a cultivar of L. cardinalis (http://
davesgarden.com/pf/go/38352/index.html).

"Ornata" wrote after
"Bob Hobden" replied to
"p. pleater" wrote ...

We recently bought a Lobelia Queen Victoria and was advised by the
nurseryman to cut it down to ground level after flowering to encourage
regrowth.
But upon reflection did he mean cut the leaves and all, or just the
flower
spikes ?
And does this apply to all perennials ?

Lobelia "Queen Vic" (or as I prefer, Lobelia cardinalis, the more
descriptive old name ) loves water so is usually grown as a bog plant.
That
said, I have a large pot full of seedlings I saved whilst weeding but
they
are not growing as tall as those in our pond. To stop them falling over
in a
wind they will need some support, link-stakes etc.
I always let them just die back naturally in the autumn (due to frost
which
they can't take much of) but where they flop over and touch the water
they
grow roots and shoots so that is a good way to propagate.

Is there a brighter red flower? I don't think so.

I thought that 'Queen Victoria' was distinct from the species L.
cardinalis (I think I read in GST's 'Perennial Garden Plants' that it
resulted from a cross between L. cardinalis and something else). But
apparently it's now considered a cultivar of L. cardinalis (http://
davesgarden.com/pf/go/38352/index.html).

My understanding is that the plants that used to be sold as L.cardinalis in
the trade are now named QV because they are not considered to be the true
species but an old hybrid between that and whatever. I've obviously never
seen what they say is the true species so can't comment. All I will say is
that it comes true from seed.
I personally feel it will be one of those plants that will bounce back and
forth at the whim of the botanists for some while.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
17mls W. of London.UK