This is a new plant that will be introduced this coming spring, by Chris Hanson
xSedoro
http://www.sunsparklersedums.c...

Would you add it to the database?

Here it is:

Sedoro (XHylostachys SunSparkler® Blue Elf)

Thank you Zuzu.
I'm going to see if Chris Hanson will allow us to use some of his photos.

You're welcome, Lynn. I hope he does.

The photos are amazing. You can really see both species represented in this new plant.

It's a great-looking hybrid, and I love anything with steel-blue foliage.

I sent him a FB message. Hopefully I will hear back from him. Keeping fingers crossed.

Zuzu, would you add this plant to the database. http://www.sunsparklersedums.c...

Here it is:

Sedum (Hylotelephium SunSparkler® Lime Twister)

Thank you Zuzu.

Could we add a field to SunSparkler® xSedoro ‘Blue Elf’ for Breeder/Hybridizer?
Sedoro (XHylostachys SunSparkler® Blue Elf)

Why don't you add a comment to the entry to provide the hybridizer's name and any other pertinent information?

Many of the plant groups (daylilies, sempervivum, sedum, hostas etc.) have that information field. It is nice to see it listed with all the other pertinent information fields.

Sedum (Hylotelephium SunSparkler® Lime Zinger)
Daylily (Hemerocallis 'B.B. Collins')
Hosta 'Little Doll'
Hen and Chicks (Sempervivum 'Maigret')

That's usually because there is a large database to reference that data from plus a large group of genus too. So far, your new Xsedoro is the only one.

Shouldn't the hybridizer information be included with most plants? It just seems like it should be in a prominent part of the entry.

It actually is present in only a few of the custom databases. In most cases it isn't that easy to find the name of the hybridizer. It's easy for roses, daylilies, fuchsias, and some other plants, but not so easy to find for others.

It is really nice when we do have the hybridizer to have it as part of the data details. Even in custom databases entries we have some that we don't know who the hybridizer is, but still have the ability to add that information if we have it.

I doubt that Dave would want to create custom architecture for a database consisting of a genus with only one entry, however.

I agree that hybridizer information is important in some cases. I want to know who bred my roses and clematises, but I don't care who bred my primulas, for example, and in the absence of a central primula registry or primula database, there's no simple way to obtain that information. I believe the hybridizer information is already part of the custom architecture of the pertinent custom databases. In all other cases, we can add the hybridizer's name in a comment if we wish.

I was just wondering why it is not an option for all database entries?

If it were added to the general section, it would have to be moved there from the custom architecture of all the custom databases, but these do not follow a standard pattern. Some of them list the name of the hybridizer alone, while others list the name of the hybridizer and the country of origin on the same line, the hybridizer's name and the date of introduction on the same line, or some other combination of data.