I recently purchased "Little Swirling Shadows" -- among others -- and surprisingly received a small, four-fanned clump. I'm worried, though, that all of the daylily websites seem to use the same photo for this plant, while the ones posted on the plant pages here look nothing like it.
I'm not sure that I'm allowed to post any of the photos that I'm referring to, per copyright and such, but this was an expensive daylily, and the pictures on websites selling this plant really don't resemble the ones posted here by users. (This is not to say that the photos posted by users aren't beautiful, because they ARE, they just don't look like the website ones.)

Anyone have an idea why that is?

Also, can anyone tell me how to edit my thread title to correct my jughead spelling error? I can't seem to find a way.

When you go to the database, you can click on the AHS Website which contains the hybridizer's photo http://www.daylilies.org/Dayli... that came with the registration. It looks different from the two in the NGA database. The description on the AHS page also describes it as 100% double. I really doubt that since I believe that both photos in the database are probably true for the plant and just a variation of what it can produce under different growing and weather conditions. Are your sources using the hybridizer's photo? If so, then depending on your growing conditions and the weather, you may see any of the three photos represented by the blooms when they show up. IMO

needrain said:When you go to the database, you can click on the AHS Website which contains the hybridizer's photo http://www.daylilies.org/Dayli... that came with the registration. It looks different from the two in the NGA database. The description on the AHS page also describes it as 100% double. I really doubt that since I believe that both photos in the database are probably true for the plant and just a variation of what it can produce under different growing and weather conditions. Are your sources using the hybridizer's photo? If so, then depending on your growing conditions and the weather, you may see any of the three photos represented by the blooms when they show up. IMO

Thank you for responding! Yes, the website uses that photo from the hybridizer, they all seem to. Honestly, I've lurked in these forums enough to trust the members that posted the photos on the plant page. And though those photos are very pretty, I don't know that I would have paid so much for a flower that looks like that image.
It's probably too late in the season for me to see what my blooms would look like, so I hope next spring's blooms look more like the hybridizer's photo.

@mystlw,
Looking at the dates of when the plant was obtained by the four members showing it, looks like 2015 was the oldest. So it is possible that the blooms shown in the database, were first year blooms in those gardens. Some who own it have not posted a picture and that might indicate it takes a while to settle in and that it might not even bloom the first year. I am thinking that in time it will look more like the hybridizers photo.

Seedfork said:@mystlw,
Looking at the dates of when the plant was obtained by the four members showing it, looks like 2015 was the oldest. So it is possible that the blooms shown in the database, were first year blooms in those gardens. Some who own it have not posted a picture and that might indicate it takes a while to settle in and that it might not even bloom the first year. I am thinking that in time it will look more like the hybridizers photo.

That's a good point, thank you! But I don't know if anyone has had this plant since 2015; I put it on my Want list last summer, and when I recently changed it to "Have", it kept the date that I first listed it as Wanted. It appears that I have had it since last August, when I actually only changed it a few days ago. I don't understand why it does that.

But it's good to know that even if it doesn't immediately bloom as the hybridizer's photo, it could eventually become that flower.

@mystlw
You should be able to click on the plant log events icon and edit the date the plant was acquired.

needrain said: The description on the AHS page also describes it as 100% double.

There isn't really a reason to doubt that - the plant is registered how it performs for the hybridizer. Under those conditions it may double consistently.


That said, I have grown the plant since introduction. Of the minis released that year, it seems to be the most tender. I will have to check if I have a photo of it anywhere (it did not bloom this year so I have to dig) but I have seen double and single blooms on it. The color has been nearly spot on to the hybridizer's photo.

JWWC said:

There isn't really a reason to doubt that - the plant is registered how it performs for the hybridizer. Under those conditions it may double consistently.


That said, I have grown the plant since introduction. Of the minis released that year, it seems to be the most tender. I will have to check if I have a photo of it anywhere (it did not bloom this year so I have to dig) but I have seen double and single blooms on it. The color has been nearly spot on to the hybridizer's photo.

Poor wording on my part, I guess. I didn't doubt that it did that for the hybridizer. But when you read the official reg info, some things like bud count, doubling, height and size of bloom may be quite different when not grown under the same conditions. I think some folks read them and expect the same performance and it may never happen. I also tend to view hybridizer's photos as a bloom reaching near the absolute potential that it can be and that may different than the average bloom you get. I know I try to photograph blooms at their very best, so that's not criticism. Most of us aren't really able to provide optimum growing conditions that allow a plant to reach its maximum potential. That potential is still there, though.

@mystlw @JWWC

I too am puzzled by the difference in the photos for Little Swirling Shadow on the ADS (hybridizer) and AGS websites. Have the two of you been growing this for a while now, and if so, has it doubled for you anywhere close to 100%? Stamiles are usually pretty reliable performers, although sometimes tender.

I haven't grown this particular miniature double, but over the past 30 years, I have grown many, many, of Grace Stamile's miniature doubles. Most of those I've grown are registered as 100% double. They do NOT perform that way for me. I saw Grace's mini seedlings at Floyd Cove (the last time was in 2009, just after they had sold the nursery to Guy and Karen Pierce.). In Florida, yes, they bloom as doubles, but you must remember, those plants get an abnormal amount of water and fertilizer that they do not get in average gardens. I need to pull pictures and look at them again ( stored on an external hard drive) because there was one double mini seedling that I was crazy over, and it looked similar to this.
Here in VA, a lot of the mini doubles bloom E or EE, and then rebloom. Many of the early blooms are single and unspectacular. Then, on rebloom, you see these amazing double blooms. I've been ready to toss several, and then was swayed by the rebloom( two examples at bottom)
IMHO, water, water, water, during scape formation and bloom season, especially if you want good blooms on doubles. I get so much more rebloom since adding an irrigation system. If water is inadequate during bloom season , the plant will pull energy into staying alive, bloom color fades, bloom size decreases, and on doubles, there are less petaloids produced. Water is such a crucial element. In the most spectacular gardens I visited all over the country, I always asked the owners about their garden culture. ( Several I remember asking when seeing their wonderful gardens were : Paul Limmer on Long Island, NY, Tim Bell in GA, and Earl Watts in MS. ) Each one of them said, without exception, that they watered their gardens heavily during bloom season. Most said an hour a day if no natural rain fell.

Examples of Grace Stamile mini doubles in my zone 6/7 garden:
Little Music Maker - early bloom with few petaloids

rebloom - much fuller


Double Cherries Duet - early bloom , very blah

Rebloom - woo hoo!


So many perform this way for me, and I've heard other gardeners say the same.

That is so interesting, Julie. What good information!

@DeweyRooter :
Nan - thanks for the acorn! Then there's the interesting phenomenon of some of Grace's minis which are not registered as doubles, but frequently have extra petaloids.
Little Sea Sprite:

Would you call that an aqua blue, that is so unusual looking and attractive to me on a daylily.

It has many different looks. Grace registered it as "blue green eye above a green throat." Sometimes Little Sea Sprite looks like this. I'm sorta surprised she didn't see some doubling in FL, as one parent is Boogie Woogie Blues.

I suppose that may be the reason I don't own it, I love the first view, not to impressed with the others. Some daylilies are not consistent in how they look one year to another, some look different from one garden to another, and some look different one day to another. I do prefer the consistent ones when I like the color, but prefer the inconsistent ones when I don't.