This discussion brings up an issue of concern to me. When these ridiculous cultivar names, such as P001S, are used, they're the key to the alphabetization of the plant. This puts Fire Spinner on the "P" page of the Delosperma genus. This makes our database somewhat user-unfriendly, in my opinion. I'm accustomed to looking up cultivars alphabetically. I would look for Fire Spinner on the "F" page and assume it's not in the database. I'm never going to remember or look up a name like P001S.

Is it at all possible that this is a temporary name used for patenting purposes? Roses have odd registration names, such as WEKbepmey, but the exhibition name of that rose is 'Strike It Rich' and no one would say that the cultivar name is WEKbepmey or file 'Strike it Rich' under "W" in a rose database.

zuzu said:Is it at all possible that this is a temporary name used for patenting purposes?

No, and the reason being is that you can not trademark a cultivar name. Once you register a domain with most (all?) registrars, the cultivar name can be referred to in any publication without restriction. So, if they want to control the name, they give it a meaningless "trade name" that they can make up and even change at their whim.

Anyway, your point is 100% valid. We shouldn't be sorting by "cultivar" any more. We need to sort by the natural referenced name. In some plants, that will be the cultivar and in other plants that will be the trade name. I will look further into how we can address this issue. But for certain, it will involve doing away with "Sort by cultivar" and toward a "Sort by name" kind of thing.

So I should just leave the way Fire Spinner is shown right now?

zuzu said:Is it at all possible that this is a temporary name used for patenting purposes? .

No, it's worse than that!! Only cultivar names, no matter how ridiculous and against naming guidelines, can be patented - the patent lasts 20 years, then expires. Until expiration, no vegetative propagation is allowed without hybridizer approval (and royalties). After expiration, anyone can vegetatively propagate the plant under that weird cultivar name.

Registered/trademarked names, however, last FOREVER (the trade mark is for 10 years, renewable indefinitely). So somebody in 20 years can sell a rose called 'WEKbepmey' (and even trademark it as My Boat's Come In) but NOT sell it as Strike It Rich. We then have the exact same plant but with 2 different names - and that's supposedly already happened. The whole issue is actually much more complicated:

Tony Avent, Plant Delights Nursery, has very good, detailed rant on the whole U.S. plant marketing practice: http://www.plantdelights.com/T...

The cultivar name always goes in single quotes, but the trademarked name never gets single quotes and has the TM or R in a circle after it.

It's now such a common practice in so many genera that I agree 100% that if a plant has a tradename, that's the name that should be used for alphabetizing, not the cultivar. Of course, if a plant cultivar gets a different trade name in another country, then it's really a mess.

Caveat: Don't know how any other country does patents or trademarks.

Well that is just down right depressing.

Plant Breeders Rights, PBR, in Europe exhibits many of the same characteristics and cv. names in alpha numeric code are acceptable. The problem with using Trade Names or rather trade designations, over cultivar names in all instances is that trade designations are also often translations of a cv. name. Echinacea purpurea Ruby Star is a non-trademarked translation of cv. 'Rubinstern'.

edit: Would listing a plant more than once in a search be workable? Some have multiple cv. names anyway and if the trade name was added to the list, ...

I need to clarify: 1) The cultivar name never changes once accepted; 2) a plant can be trademarked without being patented. Patenting costs a lot; trademarking doesn't. We can't assume that a plant is patented just because it has a trademark; 3) a plant can be patented without having a trademark.

Genus: Nandina
Species: domestica
Cultivar Name: 'Murasaki' PERMANENT, regardless of patent or trademarking now or in the future
Patent is with cultivar name: US #21391 (20 years for 'Murasaki')
Trade Name: Flirt™ (10 years, renewable indefininately)

Genus: Philodendron
Species: (None - okay under naming conventions as long as there's a cultivar)
Cultivar: 'Winterbourn'
Patent: Expired (1988-2008)
Trade Name: Xanadu™ (still extant - but what a mess http://www.smgrowers.com/produ...)

Genus: Tecoma
Species: stans
Cultivar: 'Lonsp'
Trade Name: Gold Star (but even the person who discovered the plant calls is 'Gold Star'

So, yep, it's become utter confusion and maddening as we try to sort out what the plant really is.

Sounds like we need a lot of 'AKA's!

Evan, so true about multiple cultivar names for the same plant:

I have Canna 'Bangkok Yellow', 'Minerva', 'Nirvana', 'Striped Beauty', 'King of Siam' - all the same plant; a very old cultivar from Asia. It's nigh impossible to trace back what the original cultivar was, if it even had a cultivar name when discovered.

How are you showing multiple cultivar names?

Calif_Sue said:Sounds like we need a lot of 'AKA's!

Oh yes, kingdom Plantae; everything lower subject to change at any given moment.

I can show you how we do it in the rose database, Monica.

In this case, 'English Sonnet' is the exhibition name of the rose, HARverag is the registration name, and the other four names are used by various sources for this cultivar (I bought it as 'Samaritan'). The search engine will find any one of these names, but the rose is filed under "E" because of its exhibition name.

Rose (Rosa 'English Sonnet')

I think Delosperma 'Fire Spinner' should be listed as 'Fire Spinner.' That is the name it is being sold under and it is very descriptive of the flowers. Nobody is going to know the other name which is just letters and numbers with no meaning.