I'm not an expert for Hemerocallis, therefore, I want to know your opinions

Daylily (Hemerocallis fulva 'Kwanso')
i think that not,

1. kwanzo is botanical name - cannot be cultivar name

2. American Hemerocallis Society (AHS) - It does not register
http://www.daylilies.org/Dayli...


3. botanical name kwanzo is synonym for Hemerocallis fulva var. fulva
http://www.catalogueoflife.org...
that is strikingly similar to the cultivar Kwanzo


botany spec. and infraspec. is 32 , AHS register 79352, ATP botany sp+infra+cultivar - 79,878
ATP is about 526 cultivar better, where are these cultivars?
is this right? or is it wrong?

your opinions and insights

the same problem - Hemerocallis dumortieri vs Hemerocallis 'Dumortierii' but is register
Daylily (Hemerocallis dumortieri) - Hemerocallis dumortieri C.Morren: 1834
- 'Dumortierii' (Moren, 1934) ? right 1834

Daylily (Hemerocallis esculenta) Hemerocallis esculenta Koidz.: 1925
Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Esculenta') Esculenta (Koidzumi, 1925)

bamira - Your question might be better posted on the Daylily Forum. There is an older thread that might help with your questions:

The thread "Kwanso vs. Flore Pleno" in Daylilies forum

@sooby or anybody else, can you help sort some of this out? I think @Zuzu knows how to fix these better than anyone!

Hemerocallis dumortieri has been corrected, Zuzu helped me with that one: The AHS has listed the botanist's name as the hybridizer. Morren (AHS has misspelled it as "Moren") discovered the species in 1934.
http://www.catalogueoflife.org...
http://www.daylilies.org/Dayli...

So there is no cultivar by that name. AHS also misspelled the "cultivar" name (Dumortierii, but the actual name is Hemerocallis dumortieri).
The AHS also did this with other species, giving them a "cultivar" name.

I guess because it's the only setup they had but we can make the proper corrections and add all the synonyms too. It would be nice to add relevant historical notes as comments to the entries too.

Stout considered some of the species specimens to be clones of an individual from a species. Thus they have cultivar names so we write Hemerocallis fulva 'Europa' as a cultivar name. Kwanzo wouldn't be a synonym for H. fulva var. fulva, I don't think. I'll have to check some references but I think H.f. var. fulva indicates a single-flowered diploid, whereas kwanzo is a double-flowered triploid. Kwanzo is written either as a varietas or a cultivar, i.e. Hemerocallis fulva var. kwanzo or Hemerocallis fulva 'Kwanso' (I'm interchanging z and s because it is spelled either way) depending which reference one goes by. I believe Stout wrote it as a cultivar name, i.e. the latter, but the nomenclature wasn't as organized then as it is now. Presumably it wouldn't be a species/varietas since it is sterile (has no normal female parts) if one defines species and varietas as something that comes reasonably true from seed in nature.

Since there are different treatments of the daylily species, for ATP I'd be inclined to go with Dr. Plodeck's list for the database (which means adding quite a few!):

http://www.hemerocallis-specie...

The AHS database/register includes some species names because the original Descriptive catalog of Hemerocallis clones, 1893-1948 prior to the AHS listed all the known daylilies at the time, and that would have included species.

One other thing I noticed in the ATP database is that there is an entry for Hemerocallis fulva as the "Ditch Lily" and Hemerocallis fulva 'Europa' separately. The "Ditch Lily" is actually the triploid 'Europa' rather than the diploid species H. fulva.

Not sure if I'm adequately answering the question. I can do some more research in a couple of days if not.

Thanks Sue. Appreciate any help.

I think many people use the term 'ditch lily' as a common name but I'll remove the reference from Hemerocallis fulva.

So should this be a triploid?
Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Europa')

Calif_Sue said:So should this be a triploid?
Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Europa')

Yes. So also should 'Kwanso', 'Variegated Kwanso', 'Flore Pleno' and Hemerocallis fulva var. maculata off the top of my head.

I imagine a number of the images under Hemerocallis fulva should really be under 'Europa' as that "ditch lily" is probably the one most people outside Asia have. Also this picture of Bamira's in the database looks yellow to me and therefore wouldn't be H. fulva:



While I'm at it I notice too that Hemerocallis 'Fulva Rosea' in the database should be Hemerocallis fulva var. rosea. It's not synonymous with 'Rosalind' as shown, 'Rosalind' is a clone (cultivar) of var. rosea. So it would be Hemerocallis fulva var. rosea 'Rosalind'. There are other cultivars of var. rosea also, besides 'Rosalind'.

Oh you are going to keep me hopping!!

We can't list the botanical name of that cultivar as Hemerocallis fulva var. rosea because H. fulva var. rosea has been reclassified as a synonym for H. fulva var. fulva.

http://www.catalogueoflife.org...

In general, we can't use the same species list as the AHS because the AHS list (Dr. Plodeck's list) is outdated. It includes many obsolete names that have been reclassified as mere synonyms. In addition, our species entries have Latin botanical names and do not include non-Latin elements (such as Margaret Perry), and the AHS species list is mistaken in some cases. H. littorea is an accepted name, for instance, but the AHS list classifies it as a synonym for H. fulva var. littorea.

http://www.catalogueoflife.org...

I'm going to stick my neck out here, and ask an obvious question: why is there so much interest in these original species,
given that hybridizers are an untold number of generations removed from them.

It's not like they're particularly attractive, for example, so why the interest?

Some of the Species daylilies have 80 buds and huge tall scapes, some are trying to get those plant habits in more attractive, fancier flowers.
We are trying to collect some to work with.

Ok, I fixed the first, AHS has it messed up! Even a different year.

Daylily (Hemerocallis fulva var. fulva)
http://www.daylilies.org/Dayli...

Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Rosalind')
http://www.daylilies.org/Dayli...

and fixed again!
Daylily (Hemerocallis fulva var. fulva)

So should we add all those other synonyms?

No, Sue. There's no need to add any more synonyms. We add synonyms only when we have an entry for the obsolete name that has to be deleted, or when someone proposes a new plant that turns out to be only a synonym for an existing entry. In other words, we add only the names that people might be seeking.

Yep, remebered that after I started going through our species list.

farawayfarmer said:I'm going to stick my neck out here, and ask an obvious question: why is there so much interest in these original species,
given that hybridizers are an untold number of generations removed from them.

It's not like they're particularly attractive, for example, so why the interest?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I happen to love the original species. Plus, they are tough, since they are still around. Many recent hybrids are long gone after a few years. They just didn't hold up like the originals did. So, there is more than one reason why so many people love them.

zuzu said:We can't list the botanical name of that cultivar as Hemerocallis fulva var. rosea because H. fulva var. rosea has been reclassified as a synonym for H. fulva var. fulva.

http://www.catalogueoflife.org...

In general, we can't use the same species list as the AHS because the AHS list (Dr. Plodeck's list) is outdated. It includes many obsolete names that have been reclassified as mere synonyms. In addition, our species entries have Latin botanical names and do not include non-Latin elements (such as Margaret Perry), and the AHS species list is mistaken in some cases. H. littorea is an accepted name, for instance, but the AHS list classifies it as a synonym for H. fulva var. littorea.

http://www.catalogueoflife.org...

I don't really understand that Catalogue of Life page, how could fulva var. rosea, a pink diploid single flower, ever have been a synonym for flava (diploid yellow single flower), kwanso (triploid double flower), or var. maculata, another single orangey triploid?

Re Dr. Plodeck's list, it doesn't have anything to do with the AHS. The AHS database early records are based on the Descriptive catalog of Hemerocallis clones, 1893-1948 (not sure if this link to it will work but I'll try it):

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cg...
and then the Hemerocallis check list, 1893 to July 1, 1957. American Hemerocallis Society
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cg...

I agree there could be some quibbles with Dr. Plodeck's species list, but according to Tropicos, H. littorea is the basionym for H. fulva var. littorea:
http://www.tropicos.org/Name/1...

Daylily taxonomy is a real can of worms

Tropicos is not a taxonomic database. Our database is based on taxonomic information from sources such as the Catalogue of Life.

As for the external differences in the H. fulva var. fulva synonyms, they're actually irrelevant. Taxonomic reclassification usually is performed pursuant to DNA testing. It helps to think of the animal kingdom in these cases. We all see the differences between poodles and cocker spaniels, but they share the same botanical name in spite of these differences.

Interestingly, ITIS says for H. fulva var. fulva: "Not Accepted - obsolete autonym":

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/Si...

They do, however, give H. f. var. rosea as a synonym for H. fulva.

As I said, can of worms