So it seems there is a lot of confusion regarding two registered plants in the database.
Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Bonanza') by Lee Gates from 1994
Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Bonanza1954') from Ferrick 1954, obviously an error was made allowing for the second registration in 1994 and AHS added the year to distinguish between the two.

As you can see, all the images in both entries are the same. The additional problem is neither matches the descriptions.
Gates 1994 "red orange self with green throat", no mention of the bright red halo/band.
Ferrick 1954 "orange yellow self". At least the AHS has an image clearly showing a solid yellow self.

So was Gates just incorrect with his description or was AHS incorrect in adding the wrong description? (more likely)
Hoping for some input here before I move out the images from the older entry.

I might be dreaming, but I thought I saw it suggested somewhere that the commonly circulated 'Bonanza' was neither of the above. I wish I could remember where I might have seen that speculation.

This sounded kind of familiar, so I tried doing a search for a patent with a daylily named Bonanza, thinking there might be a third. I didn't find it, but then again, I did it through Google. I know there's a way to go into the patent web site and then search, but I've lost that link and I'm too stoopid to find it today.

So I was investigating to see if maybe it is a plant like Earlybird Cardinal, which is trade marked as Earlybird Cardinal and stated as that on a patent, but it's registered as Endless Heart.

So I looked for evidence of something like that for Bonanza, but didn't find any.

Interestingly, I saw it on a lot of catalogs, like Darwin and American Meadows, and they don't list a patent number, either, but they don't list a hybridizer for it, so I consider that more evidence that what we think of as Bonanza is too nice to stop selling, but no one is to committing to it being one of the two registered by a hybridizer.

I did find a photo and this description on another site.
https://growingforyou.com/heme...

I notice that the NGA database description for the 1954 one differs from the registration description. It says self, eye or band instead of just self. It can't be a self if it has an eye or band, so looks like that was added in error to match the pictures?

I remember when I first got into daylilies there were some potted daylilies that were for sale in various retail outlets including the infamous "Magic Dawn" that isn't 'Magic Dawn', and one of those was "Bonanza". This was only a few years after Gates registered his 'Bonanza', it's hardly likely it was for sale for a few $ all over Canada by then and I don't think it was a yellow self. So on reflection that rather supports there being a third unregistered "Bonanza".

I finally remembered where I'd seen discussion of a third "Bonanza". It was on the AHS email Robin, and the gist of it was that a certain seller (named on the Robin but I won't name it here since this is public) was selling 'Helicon' under the name "Bonanza" and this became the most commonly found "Bonanza"..

Here's the AHS pic of 'Helicon' - look familiar?

https://www.daylilies.org/Dayl...

sooby said:I finally remembered where I'd seen discussion of a third "Bonanza". It was on the AHS email Robin, and the gist of it was that a certain seller (named on the Robin but I won't name it here since this is public) was selling 'Helicon' under the name "Bonanza" and this became the most commonly found "Bonanza"..

Here's the AHS pic of 'Helicon' - look familiar?

https://www.daylilies.org/Dayl...

Here in Europe you get this plant under the name Bonanza:



The description of Helicon seems quite suitable but the 'Bonanza' here is not a midseason bloomer, it starts usually after peak bloom here.

The one I have that looks like that starts pretty close to peak for me. Maybe by 1948 standards, that is mid, or maybe where it was hybridized it blooms mid??? Or maybe it's not Helicon/Bonanza???

You know, we went off the rails early with Daylilies. Starting with the word daylily when it's not a true lily. I know we've all had that conversation with people. I send pics of my seedlings to a friend, and she sends pictures of Asiatic and other lilium back. I'd explain it to her, but I know she doesn't care, and I don't want to see that "what the #^@^ are you talking about?" look on her face as I try to explain it.

So, I guess it's important to continue making it difficult for true hem collectors and growers. Heemskirk can sell all his "Forever" daylilies under one name and register them under another so we don't know what we're talking about. We can have 3 plants called Bonanza, and we can have one plant like Magic Dawn that has three different names. And the hybridizer that creates and sells beautiful, long blooming, season extending daylilies that are registered starting "Early Bird..." had her name hijacked by a big corporation that trademarked Earlybird Cardinal and Earlybird Oriole.

I'm sure if we put our minds to it, we can find more ways to make it even worse.

Lyshack said:I'd explain it to her, but I know she doesn't care, and I don't want to see that "what the #^@^ are you talking about?" look on her face as I try to explain it.

^And this is why daylily people are my people. 😂🤣🏵️

Oh boy, what a mess! So it looks like I may need to move ALL the images in both entries to Helicon?!!

I'm trying to remember, is there an alias field on the daylily page where we can explain that the daylily popularly sold as Bonanza is actually Helicon? If we post that on both Bonanza pages, people may read it and look there before they post a picture under the wrong name? Just trying to keep your ongoing work to a minimum. I might be thinking of another site.

About the only thing to do is add that info to the comments section, which of course no one reads before adding photos.

Would this work? Add a new page for a "Bonanza unregistered" for the photos. Make an image saying something like "said to be the registered cultivar 'Helicon') and upload that to the page if we're assuming what was written on the AHS Robin was correct.

It would seem this confusion also messes up parentage because presumably some of the 'Bonanza' as a parent are actually 'Helicon' but I don't think there's much that could be done about that.

How about moving all the photos to HELICON, and having the two registered BONANZA pages set so no photos could be added without approval from Admin. Then if someone comes up with an actual photo that meets the hybridizer descriptions let those be entered.
Add an explanation on the BONANZA page about the mix up that directs the photos be entered under the
HELICON entry.

Here's an interesting kettle of fish! And I have Bonanza….I mean Helicon, blooming this very minute right under my window! It's definitely the old one, it's tall.

Zoia,
When you say it is definitely the old one, are you talking about the 1954 registered plant that is described as being orange yellow self? If it is I would love to see a photo.

And that entry needs a photo!
Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Helicon')

From today. So, I definitely thought this was Bonanza, but now I'll reclassify it under its original name, Helicon

what a mess, I don't even remember where I got my Helicon/Bonanza I have had it so long, probably 15 years, it is still doing great, it blooms a little later here because of our late spring.

So I moved 30 images to Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Helicon') (correction, see new post and entry below) and since everyone gets a system message for the image move, I'll tag them to alert them to this thread so they can correct the name and inventory list here. I also added duplicate comments to all three entries.

@mcash70 (I see you already commented here )
@valleylynn
@alilyfan
@PeggyC
@Natalie
@Guybo
@Joy
@Maridell
@Zoia (also already commented here)
@jkporter
@rolliekins
@HemNorth
@Raven
@D3LL
@alilyfan
@DaylilySLP
@lovemyhouse
@RuuddeBlock
@gardenglassgems