Some plants have latin names that match their common name, for example Cannas and Hostas. In those cases, their name is displayed in the database like this:

Hosta (Hosta 'Straight Flush')

I always thought it looked a little silly to repeat the name twice like that, so I updated the database today to display just the regular name in the cases of plants where the latin name isn't really necessary.

I have done this for the following plants:

Garlic
Caladiums
Cannas
Daylilies
Watermelons
Clematis
Crocosmia
Cucumbers
Dahlias
Carrots
Fuchsias
Hostas
Plumeria
Tulips
Roses

If you want me to back out this change on any particular plants, let me know and I'll be glad to do it. And if there are any others that you'd like me to give this treatment to, just let me know.

I like it!

Aren't roses all Rosa something, and garlic Allium? Cukes Cucumis? Perhaps I am not 'getting' what the change is?

Instead of Hosta (Hosta 'Straight Flush')

It is now

Hosta 'Straight Flush'

One thing Dave. The species name is no longer displayed.

ex. Crocosmia (Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora 'A.E. Amos'). This is a Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora.

Maybe you could display the Latin name even if there are no synonyms.

...or would that defeat the purpose?

I think the first example is more clear, but that could just be because it is what I am accustomed to seeing. Here's my layperson interpretion of the first example: The common name is hosta. The botanical name is also hosta and apparently does not divide into separate species. The cultivar name is Straight Flush. This does not seem repetitious to me, but rather more accurate.

Will roses now be rose or rosa? No allium for garlic?

Or, am I getting confused because each of these large groups actually has their own specific database, and that information is at a different level?

eclayne said:One thing Dave. The species name is no longer displayed.

ex. Crocosmia (Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora 'A.E. Amos'). This is a Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora.

Maybe you could display the Latin name even if there are no synonyms.

...or would that defeat the purpose?

I can do that.

Alternatively, I can not give it the custom simplified display if a species is present.

Deb, roses are now Rose 'Cultivar Name' and garlic is Garlic 'Cultivar Name'

I'm not married to any of this and would be glad to customize this however we like. I just want it to look nice.

Still trying to wrap* my head around this change. I experimented by adding the garlic 'Burgundy' to My List to see where it would locate itself. It properly is listed between ladies mantle (Alchemilla mollis) and chives (Allium schoenoprasum) rather than somewhere in the Gs, but the listed entry is only identified as Garlic 'Burgundy' with no indication that is it an Allium. Seems confusing to me.

*Corrected to read wrap instead of warp - perhaps my misspelling was more accurate...ha ha

Ahh, I see now. When appearing inside a list, it's still ordering by genus, but since the genus is not being displayed it appears out of order. Hmm. We need a solution for that.

What if the garlics appeared with the "G" plants instead of the A plants?

So in the case of lists with multiple different genera, the sort would be natural instead of by genus.

For consistency, I think all plants should remain sorted by their botanical name in all lists. If the lists arbitrarily switched from sorting by the botanical name for most and the common name for some, it would seem to just become a mish-mash. The garlics should list with the other alliums, etc.

Another thing that struck out at me when scrolling through My List is the simplification of certain genera looks (to me) like we don't know what the botanical name is. An example is the crocosmias. Since the common and genus name are the same, you have eliminated the italic genus name. When quickly scrolling down, that jumped out at me as missing information.

I think consistency and accuracy is more important than the perception of redundancy - edited to add: Allium sativum 'Burgundy' (Garlic) conveys more accurate and useful information to me than Garlic 'Burgundy'

Bonehead said:I think consistency and accuracy is more important than the perception of redundancy.

That's a good point.

We'll leave it alone for now and if nobody says anything to the contrary I'll revert my changes in the morning.

We cross posted. I'd wait and see what others think. Always good to have a discussion I think.

Im with bone head on this one.

@Dave How about Hoya plants, can those entries be edited/changed so they don't repeat twice?

http://garden.org/plants/brows...

What about name consistency too? Right now some are listed with the common name of Wax Plant while others just say Hoya, example:

Wax Plant (Hoya acuminata)
Hoya (Hoya acuta)
Wax Plant (Hoya australis)
Hoya (Hoya brevialata)
Wax Plant (Hoya buotii)
Hoya (Hoya calycina)
Hoya (Hoya camphorifolia)
Wax Plant (Hoya carnosa)

Maybe we do this just for plants who have a genus with no species, and where the genus is the same or almost the same as the common name (Hosta, Hoya, Rosa...)

I think I am with Deb on this one. Consistency is more important the the perceived redundancy.

Alright, not all my ideas pan out. I'm putting it back the way it was.

@plantladylin, it's my understanding that the common name is somewhat flexible, similar to how the thumbnail photo is chosen - either the first entry or the one with the most thumbs will show up on lists. You may be able to change those yourself by giving a thumbs up to your preferred common name. I was mystified by Abies grandis (Grand Fir) being called Great Fir (which I had never heard of) until I realized I could 'sway' that by simply thumbing the Grand Fir common name.

fully with Deb!