Thank you for singling me out here. And thank you for saying I misquoted. Maybe what you (all) don't realize is that people see things differently, read and perceive things differently. As I have said before, I do not know the difference between 'searching' and' browsing' (to me they mean the same thing), but in another thread Dave explained that the lists will appear differently if one 'searches' than if one 'browses'.

I had no intention of misquoting anyone, thank you. I simply said that zuzu said one thing and Kent said something different - different to my eyes/brain/understanding.

Kent's words: "In that link, you are browsing by the genus Sedum"
My words: "KentPfeiffer says the same list is in order of genus."

To me those two sentences mean the same thing....I see 'genus and I see Sedum'.

This is different than
zuzu's words: "The list is in alphabetical order by species"
My words: "zuzu says that list is in order of species"

This is an example of an alphabetical list for Sedum: http://www.theplantlist.org/br...
And a list for Hylotelephium: http://www.theplantlist.org/tp...
While both these lists are in alphabetical order it would still be necessary for a person to 'know' or to be 'told/taught/reminded' that some Sedums are now Hylotelephium...gosh, that newer name just rolls off my tongue so easily

Going back to the very beginning of this thread there was an individual who had a problem simply because she did not understand the difference between the old names and the new. There was no sign post available to show the way. Since the OP can now understand how to enter plants on her list there is no need for me to continue beating my dead horse; my intention was to try to make the searching - whether it be called 'search' or' browse' - something that all people can understand. At the moment I am not feeling very warm and fuzzy about this entire thing but as I have lived through many disappointments in life, I guess I can survive this, too.

Ah, Greene, I do sympathize with you -- but please put your hackles down. I don't think anyone meant to single you out or criticize. I'm also a bit mystified by the difference between searching and browsing. I think it would be lovely if all lists were alphabetized by genus-species-cultivar. I am vaguely comprehending the idea behind alphabetizing simply by cultivar as the genus & species tend to change names frequently. I try to just roll with it. Sound like this has been an on/off discussion and perhaps needs some more input? Dave asked for a clear proposal, here's mine:

Set all lists to alphabetize by genus-species-cultivar, whether browsing or searching.

Open for discussion...

Bonehead said:Dave asked for a clear proposal, here's mine:

Set all lists to alphabetize by genus-species-cultivar, whether browsing or searching.

Open for discussion...

There are several reasons I wouldn't like that system. Some cultivars have a species name included in the entry, while others don't. Tagetes 'Snowball,' for instance, has no species name listed, whereas Tagetes patula 'Snowdrift' does have a species listed. If the system were alphabetized by genus-species-cultivar, Tagetes 'Snowball' would be far away from Tagetes patula 'Snowdrift' for no good reason. And what if we didn't know the name of the species for a particular cultivar listed according to the genus-species-cultivar system? Would we have to look for it alphabetically after every Tagetes species name?

I prefer having all of the cultivars of a genus listed together alphabetically by cultivar name, regardless of their species.

I also prefer having the species entries listed separately from the cultivars for selfish reasons. Most of my work in the database is focused on species names. The easiest way to keep them accurate and up to date is to compare our list to the list in the Catalogue of Life and correct any discrepancies. It would take much longer if I had to wade through a list of cultivars following each species name.

In short, I like the present system. If I want to find all of the plants now or previously belonging to the Sedum genus, I enter sedum in the search box and choose " Click here to view all plants in the genus: sedum." This gives me a list, alphabetized by species, of all the plants that are or were included in the Sedum genus. This list tells me that many species (and, therefore, cultivars) have been reclassified as species of the Phedimus, Rosularia, Hylotelephium, and other genera.

If I want to find only the sedums that still belong to the Sedum genus, I go to the Sedum custom database and choose "Browse the full list of sedums." This gives me a list of all the plants currently included in the genus, without any listings for any other genera.

That's how I use it, "Click here to view all plants in the genus: sedum" or the "Browse the full list of sedums." and use the alphabetical listing.

When I see the word "Search", I think of "filter". Like, "Please show me a list of the database entries that match this filter".

When I see the word "Browse", I think of a list so long that I have to page up and down a lot, and wish for more filtering and sorting tools. But these may not be how those words are used here.

I think my own preference would not be a popular one, so I won't call it a "suggestion".
And I think it would be about the hardest possible set of features to implement (and use).

I have a perverse desire for maximum complexity.
Of course, that means "less convenient" for the majority of users.

Perhaps this "preference" would only be practical in addition to the existing easier-to-use search and browse features. Like an "Advanced Search" feature.

I would like to be able to FIRST filter on genus, species, cultivar and/or common name.
Generate the list.
And then sort the list.

For example, have four dialog boxes, one for genus, one for species, one for cultivar and maybe one for common name.

It would be nice if each of those had spell-check to help with long names and difficult diphthongs.
And maybe it could have automatic features to propose alternatives if a genus was recently split.
"Did you mean 'Hylotelephium'?"

It would be gorgeous if entering and confirming the genus pulled up a list of species within that genus.
It would be beyond gorgeous to have an auto-complete feature as we typed.

After I filled out 2-3 fields from the common name - genus - species - cultivar dialog, I would hit "Go" and generate a list of database entries that matched the fields I had entered.

Then, wishing for the Sun, Moon, Stars and nebular objects, I wish the filtered list of database entries had check-boxes at the top for customizable alphabetization.

If I had filled out genus and species, the options would be
"Alphabetize by Cultivar" and
"Alphabetize by Common Name"

If I had filled out common name and genus , the options would be
"Alphabetize by species" and
"Alphabetize by cultivar"

It would be asking TOO much (even I recognize this) to ask for "sort first by species and then, within each species, sort by cultivar". Maybe that could be accomplished by first concatenating the species name with the cultivar name and THEN sorting.

The next echelon of my unreasonable wishes would be things like:

- Being able to save my favorite search patterns so I could re-create them by just picking from my list.
- And the ability to save a sorted list of entries (perhaps to a comma-separated file).
- And the ability to add columns from the database to my sorted list facilitating comparisons.
- And the ability to re-sort (or re-filter) the list using these new columns.

Again, I'm not seriously suggesting that this would be practical.

Sigh. I'd be happy with just the simple option of "searching results" of my initial search.

Thanks, Woofie. I agree, it would be great to be able to search on characteristics like "height" or "minimum Zone" within the current search list.

I guess "search within a search".

The only thing we haven't asked for is a button to "weed all my beds for me".

But I guess that getting that "weeding" feature would provoke requests for more features like
"remove only THESE specific weeds", or
"don't remove THESE weeds".