Leucoplast was a term I co-opted myself for variegation. You probably aren't going to find many books that call them that, but it is correct with respect to the Latin: "colorless/white plastid." I did find a review paper that used the same terminology: http://www.springerlink.com/content/01148l09u2553067/ I don't know if you will have access to these journals (through JSTOR etc), but some scientists have studied variegation. Looking into the literature, it looks like nucleus-controlled non-chimeric variegation is more common than I previously thought and some common internet resources (e.g. Wikipedia) would have suggested. Still, it is clear that non-viral variegations are extremely common and possibly much more common than viral variegations. Some examples of genetic variegation. Nuclear control (non-chimeral): *Saintpaulia ionantha http://www.jstor.org/pss/2444194 ****There are also chimeral variegations in African violets *Dieffenbachia "Camille" http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/77/4/285.short *Arabadopsis thaliana http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/84/2/138.abstract Chimeral: *Ficus rubiginosa 'Variegata' http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/1/51.full *Tobacco http://www.jstor.org/pss/2440210 *Barley and Rice http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/13/6/544.pdf ****Figure three is a very good visual explanation of the concept. Clearly non-viral variegation is common to many groups. One will notice that an aroid is reported (Dieffenbachia) with nonviral genetic variegation. My recollection is that Dieffenbachia variegation is natural, as in D. seguina and D. regina, and cultivars simply exaggerate the variegation. I wasn't able to access the fulltext of that article, so I can't say quite as much. This paper reports Epipremnum aureum, another variegated aroid, as natural variegation (a surprise to me): http://www.springerlink.com/content/d005p75vg1171860/fulltext.pdf. It looks like this is controlled by nuclear genes and is non-chimeral. Another example of natural aroid variegation is in Schismatoglottis calyptrata (http://www.springerlink.com/content/wmeda9kpt7d2bnga/). Another paper shows/mentions natural variegation in Homalomena and Caladium (http://www.springerlink.com/content/5608833712u8537r/). I think it is clear that natural variegations are relatively stable and under genetic control, rather than being virally transmitted. They frequently function to deter herbivores by mimicking damaged leaves. It seems clear (IMHO) that at least in many cases, aroid variegation is not due to artificial infection by viruses. No doubt it has been reported for several plants, such as Zamioculcas, but I don't think that one can conclude that all aroid variegations (even artificial) are necessarily viral in origin.

Sounds like the old printer should be creating a "proof sheet" with numbers corresponding to thumbnail-sized pictures of each image on your camera card. You might check in the manual if there's some way of generating a proof sheet that includes those numbers. The nice thing about the new printer is that you really don't need a computer to intervene unless you want to make considerable changes to a picture (lighten it up, crop it, etc.). I leave my computer on all the time (sleeping if I'm not using it), so it's no big thang for me. But many people switch theirs off and it would be a pain to have to switch on the computer for ten minutes worth of work. I'm not real familiar with the PictureMate, but it would surprise me if it worked any differently than you expect -- plug in card, choose pictures, print.

There are lots of decent photo printers out there. Which one you pick depends in part on how much you want to spend and in part on how large your DIL will want to print. If she's doing photo shoots with clients, my guess is that she'll want to have the option to print big. I have this one, and can recommend it highly. It prints up to 13 x 19". Because of this, the printer itself takes up a lot of room. It wouldn't do for a small desk. The Canon line of photo printers has a good reputation. You might do an Amazon search and check out the different models and reviews. Epson has a good rep, too, but I don't recommend it because of so many reports of ink clogs if the printer isn't used often enough. I had an HP photo printer for years and was happy with it, but I don't know anything about their current line. One possibility is that your DIL might want to print her own occasionally, and for casual photos, but send the pro images out. That's what I did when I was exhibiting, uploading my image files to Mpix.com. They do beautiful work. You sound like a good mother-in-law!

Our two Mini-labradoodles (2nd generation)have different types of hair from each other. Our female, Andi has wiry hair on her back but her legs, head are soft and wavy/curly. She doesn't shed hair on our clothes or furniture but when you comb her, especially on her thick back fur, you will get it in the comb. Amos, our black male, has more poodle like hair, soft, its wavy to thick curls. We cut his hair about every other week to keep the mats down, which was a real problem when he was swimming this summer. Now it is not such a problem and we let him go a little longer. I do find little curls like on the carpet where he scratches them out, mostly from around his neck or ears. Either that or his sister pulls them out playing! Our breeder did not promise that they wouldn't shed at all, but that there would be less than other breeds like our Brittany. We certainly have less shedding than with either our Brittany or our Cockapoo. Hers was more like fuzz when she shed. He did tell us that they would need combing and that daily would be the best route to go. Luckily, they both love to be combed and its part of our nightly routine while we are on the floor with them. I agree (QQ know this) that they are very sweet, lovable, and smart.