krancmm said:Cultivar: My understanding of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP, Cultivated Plant Code) is that there can be only one cultivar of a given plant.
There appears to be a gap. I threw Alocasia x amazonica 'Polly' in common names - it shouldn't be there. But it shouldn't be in the synonym list either and it certainly doesn't belong as a separate plant. Nor is it a cultivar (the correct name 'Poly' can be traced back to a breeder and date).
What I propose is a new field "Also Sold As" directly under Trade Name that would allow multiple entries for the various wild and whacky names under which a plant might be sold. It would need to be searchable.
dave said:This has been my assertion for some time, and originally the database only supported one cultivar field. But Zuzu prevailed upon me that Roses needed multiple cultivar names, (and this seems to be true, even if it violates the ICNCP) but I think you're right that those cases should have been able to be handled using your "Also sold as" field..
dave said:In this case, 'Polly' is the field we care about. "Alocasia x amazonica" is the latin name and identifies what kind of plant it is. That value belongs either in the primary latin name fields or else in the synonym fields.
So I would say "Polly" by itself would belong as one of the "secondary" cultivar names as it stands today, and in the future would move into an "Also sold as" field.
dave said:I think what might be better still is to do away with "Trade Name" altogether, and have a series of fields where you can enter one by one all the names by which the plant goes, including the trade name.
krancmm said:Alocasia x amazonica is incorrect as is Alocasia amazonica. Both 'Poly' and "Polly" are being sold under both invalid botanical names. It's only "correct" Latin name at this time is Alocasia 'Poly'.
krancmm said:So my question: is ATP to be based on a botantical system or "a much better system" or a combination dependent on the passions growers have for specific genera?
krancmm said:who is this database's users: the general gardening public, botanists and plant pedants (geeks like me) or everyone? The architecture depends on that answer IMHO.
databases by committee usually result in some odd looking entries as the designer tries to satisfy everyone...been there. Mabe Dave is way better at this than I was.
dave said:
Ok, I need a lightbulb icon. I now think I see what you mean: vendors are selling this plant using an incorrect latin name and invalid cultivar name, and we want to be able to represent that in the database somehow, and that's where the proposed "Also Sold as" field comes in.
Am I seeing this right now?
But if that's the case, just because a vendor has incorrect information, should we even include that? The only value I see to it is that people searching for this erroneous or mis-spelling information may find it. I can see the value to that, for certain, but it seems like a lot of trouble to go through.
Just asking...
zuzu said:Here's something interesting:
http://www.catalogueoflife.org...
I saw an entry for Symphyandra zanzegur and suspected that it was a misspelled duplicate of S. zangezura, but when I looked it up to make sure, I saw that Symphyandra doesn't seem to exist as a genus any longer and all of the names have become synonyms of Campanulas and a couple of other genera. Is there a moderator for campanula or symphyandra that wants to tackle this or should I make these changes?
My suspicions were correct, by the way: S. zanzegur does not seem to exist, although Annie's Annuals and other reputable sources are using that name. So, should it be included as an incorrect or illegitimate name of S. zangezura (or of Campanula zangezura, in keeping with the pending changes)?
eclayne said:Here's an example that just came to light from our resident Alocasia expert.
see
"Alocasia odora 'California' is a trade name for Alocasia gageana"
Both Alocasia gageana and Alocasia odora are accepted names.