woofie said:Are there ANY blooms that are that big? Oh, maybe sunflowers.....

Inflorescence over 18":

Many grasses- to 4' (they are considered flowering plants)
Amaranthus caudatus (Love-Lies-Bleeding) 3'-4'
Wisteria to 3'
Number of pendulous Heliconias 1'-3+'
Strongylodon macrobotrys (Jade Vine) to 10'

And that's without really thinking about it.

Hmmm, I WAS thinking of the individual flowers. Are the blooms on things like Wisteria considered a single bloom?

That confused me too, Woofie. I would think Wisteria blooms are those little things that are all clustered together on the raceme.

The difference seems to be in reference to bloom clusters as opposed to single blooms.
What about Queen Anne's Lace?

You all are the pros, but I'm simply curious.

And you make a very good point with that example, Shar! I don't really know, either.

That's why I suggested splitting them. Racemes, spikes, panicles etc. are not flower forms, they are types of inflorescences. It's a bit confusing having them listed together in the same category with flower forms (although, technically, a compound flower is a type of inflorescence as well).

Speaking of types of inflorescences, I:

misspelled "Thyrse" above
forgot "Catkin"
and should have said "Spadix" rather than Spathe (a spathe the sheath covering a spadix, the spadix is the actual inflorescence)

I fixed the three items.

I'm noticing Monarda blooms being described as a whorl or whorled. Is this an appropriate addition to the Flower Form area? Or could it be added in an "other" drop down?

Monarda flowers give the appearance of being arranged in whorls but, technically, they aren't. Instead, the inflorescence is a particular type of a Cyme called a Verticillaster. Many plants in the mint family have this type of inflorescence.

So, Monarda blooms could be described as Cymes, Verticillasters, or Whorls. For what it is worth, Whorl isn't a term a botanist would use. On the other hand, Cyme and Verticillaster probably aren't terms very many gardeners know. I guess it depends on how technical the database should be?

It can be as technical as we want because we can present the information in many different ways - some friendly and some technical.

Maybe for the Flower Form area, we want something like 'Whorled-type' or 'Whorled in appearance'.

dave said:It can be as technical as we want because we can present the information in many different ways - some friendly and some technical.

I like this approach in particular because more than one selection can be made.

While I'm unsure of it's accuracy the Wikipedia Inflorescence page has nice diagrams of a variety of forms, verticillaster among them. Thanks Kent. Rhipidium, can be very well described by a photo of a spent bloom stalk of a Canna showing the fruit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...