It's true that the "var. autonyms" are being phased out in most cases, and this probably will happen with H. fulva var. fulva in the near future. When it does, we'll make the appropiate changes. ITIS is a reliable source in most cases, but the dates of information have to be considered. The latest information cited on the ITIS page dates back to 2010. The CoL updates much more frequently and cites a 2014 source on its H. fulva var. fulva page.

Interesting conversation going on here between Sue and Zuzu.

John - I agree with Natalie that the ditch lilies are beautiful to many folks. I had 2 different ones Kwanso being one of them and I tried for 3 years to keep them alive. They didn't make it in my garden. But I have heard they can be invasive in many parts of the USA.

Ashton - Have you tried yet to cross a wild lily species with a ornamental hybrid? If so, did the cross take? Your comment above really perked my ears up!

I have more of an interest than Ashton, however this has started to peak his interest. Becky you get me going on your questions. I am creating a heritage daylily garden. Nothing later than 1979 allowed in the bed. We just started collecting more species this year. However, Hemerocallis Dumortieri is one that, rumor has it came to Oklahoma on the covered wagon with my great grandparents during the land run of 1889. We still grow it today and it blooms weeks before any other daylily in our gardens. The garden name in the family was old and early. We have tried crossing with it but no success. Next year we begin our species experiments here. I do have several seedlings with species parents growing now from purchased seeds. Are we not the strangest hybridizers you can find?
Terry

Terry - YOU and Ashton are NOT the strangest, but you are certainly up there at the top of the list for the most interesting! I love the idea of growing a heritage daylily bed! That is so cool! Oh my gosh ... if I had the land ....

I would love to see a photo of your Hemerocallis Dumortieri bloom. (Please!) That is a neat story that your family brought them to Oklahoma.

I wonder if some of those species could be converted like they do with dip to tet? I wonder how expensive that would be if they could? I bet you are not the only one trying to cross them either. I bet there are "skeletons" in some of the well-known hybridizers closets (errr ... fields)!

Terry - I wish you had your own account and avatar on ATP. I never know who I am reading until I see YOUR name at the bottom of a post. Sort of like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde???? Just kidding ....

zuzu said:It's true that the "var. autonyms" are being phased out in most cases, and this probably will happen with H. fulva var. fulva in the near future. When it does, we'll make the appropiate changes. ITIS is a reliable source in most cases, but the dates of information have to be considered. The latest information cited on the ITIS page dates back to 2010. The CoL updates much more frequently and cites a 2014 source on its H. fulva var. fulva page.

The reference seems to be the WCSP of September 2014 but I can't get that database to work right now, it gives me an error every time. I did find this on The Plant List, which again gives H. fulva as the accepted name:
http://www.theplantlist.org/tp...
based on WCSP 2012. I wonder what changed between 2012 and 2014?

I can understand all the variations of H. fulva being included under that name. However, H. flava (correctly lilioasphodelus now), listed as a synonym for fulva var. fulva in the Catalogue of Life, isn't a H. fulva based on this DNA AFLP research: Tomkins, J. P., Wood, T. C., Barnes, L. S., Westman, A., & Wing, R. A. (2001). Evaluation of genetic variation in the daylily (Hemerocallis spp.) using AFLP markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 102(4), 489-496.

"Utilizing neighbor-joining analysis, the six H. fulvas were distinctly separated from the other species. Clustering within the fulvas also supported some fine-scale taxonomic classifications. For example, the distinction described by Erhardt between the two fulva double-flowered genotypes ‘Kwanso’ and ‘Flore Pleno’ is reflected in the molecular data. .............. Erhardt had proposed a close relationship between two other members of the citrina group, Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus and Hemerocallis thunbergii, which was well supported by our data, but they did not closely group with the other citrina members. In fact, our data suggest that the middendorffii group and the citrina
group should be merged into one large taxonomic group."

(FWIW the six fulvas tested were var. sempervirens, 'Kwanso', 'Flore Pleno', var. rosea, 'Europa' and var. maculata).

beckygardener said:Terry - I wish you had your own account and avatar on ATP. I never know who I am reading until I see YOUR name at the bottom of a post. Sort of like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde???? Just kidding ....

It used to have both of our names on there, but I hi-jacked the account!
Since he was never on here I took his name off.
Here's pictures of H. Dumortieri.



I don't know if they sell them in the U.S., but Gryphon Gardens has the converted H. citrina.
http://gryphongardens.ca/dayli...

I guess I will have to put his name back on here.

Ashton

The Plant List is not a reliable taxonomic source (too outdated and too full of errors), so I'm not surprised that they list H. flava as a synonym for H. fulva. Our database lists H. flava as a synonym for H. lilioasphodelus, which is the correct current status of the taxon.



The CoL entry for H. flava var. flava does list H. fulva as a synonym, but it also says "nom. illeg.," meaning that it was once listed as a synonym incorrectly.

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

In contrast, the CoL entry for H. lilioasphodelus lists H. flava as a legitimate synonym.

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

As for the 2001 research you cite, I can only assume that it was disproved in subsequent years.

Ashton - That is a quaint little yellow flower! I like it a lot! I appreciate you posting a photo.

Thanks for that link ... very, very, very interesting!! So you got a tet conversion of some of the species? Or are yours the actual species (not converted)? If yours are converted, you are saying no luck crossing them? I have seen in my own yard (first year I had them) the fulva ditch lilies bloom and they were a sight to see! I loved them. Kwanzo is REALLY beautiful and I had some of those too!!! Kwanzo is one I wish I could cross with some of my seedlings. Can you just imagine the bloom pattern and the amazing show come early Spring and maybe re-blooms?!!! I'd probably faint from the beauty!

Laughing about you having to add your dad back onto your member name!

Aren't The Plant List and Catalogue of Life are both citing the same source in this case though, WCSP?

So on the basis of var. rosea being synonymous with fulva var. fulva and listed under it in the ATP database, then so also should the other synonyms in the Catalogue of Life presumably be added, like var. kwanso/aka cultivar 'Kwanso'?

I can't find anything I can access on DNA more recent than Tomkins in a Google Scholar search. It would be surprising for lilioasphodelus to be a fulva, it's not similar at all other than being a daylily

Incidentally, on trying to find a more recent DNA study than Tomkins I did stumble upon Bamira's fulva picture that I mentioned above as not being H. fulva. It is captioned Hemerocallis citrina, see Fig 2 here:
http://pmcc.web-t.cisti.nrc.ca...

I explained our policy on synonyms higher up in this thread when Calif_Sue asked the question.

zuzu said: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.

Unless our Kwanzo entry is renamed as a species, there is no reason to add H. fulva var. kwanso to the H. fulva var. fulva entry. We never had a Hemerocalis fulva var. kwanso entry to delete, so we don't have to add it as an explanation for someone looking for the deleted entry.

If the cultivar names of some daylilies turn out to be names that have been given mistakenly to species dayliies, the cultivar entries should be merged with the appropriate species entries, and the "cultivar" names should be added to those species entries as also-sold-as names.

It's great that you found the photo and the correct name. I'll leave the move to Calif_Sue or bamira.

Ashton & Terry - I just saw Gryphon Garden's page that shows the crosses they made with some of the fulva species. Wow! Almost exactly how I envisioned some of them to look! That is sooooooo darn cool!!! I hope you do the same thing and use different tet cultivars. I would love to see what you come up with. And I can just imagine the bloom show!!!!

http://gryphongardens.ca/cross...

@Calif_Sue, @sooby, @zuzu

I recently joined NGA and have been reading some old threads.

I can't seem to quote "bamira" to reply to that post.

Also I'm typing on my phone and don't have my references at hand, so I am only going to address the Kwanso question and a bit of related matters.

I believe that "kwanzo" and "kwanso" are transliterations of the common Japanese name for this daylily. Therefore there may not be one "correct" spelling. Arlow B Stout chose to use Kwanso. He recognized that it is a completely sterile form and therefore was only being maintained by asexual propagation, making it a clone and in essence a cultivar. Also he observed that the green form arose readily by sporting from the variegated form.

You will find it "registered " in the AHS database as 'Green Kwanso'. It attributes the name as (Stout 1917). I think this date is an error, see below.

Note that the names given in the database, although in modern common practice being the hybridizer, are actually the names of the AUTHORS of those names- the people who created or assigned the name to the plant. Stout did not hybridize 'Green Kwanso'!

Stout obviously used that name to differentiate the cultivar from the other name he AUTHORED of 'Variegated Kwanso'. Date given in the AHS database as (Stout 1947). This is more likely close to a correct date. I believe the 1917 date above was a data entry typo.

Both of the above can be found by searching on "Kwanso" - "anywhere in cultivar name ". It's a very useful
search function.

The generous contributors who donated their time to digitize the Checklists were not taxonomists. And ordinary typographical mistakes were made, not surprisingly.

Moreover, the structure of the database does not accommodate botanical nomenclature's stylistic renderings. IMHO botanical names should be clearly indicated and a statement made that these names are subject to disputation by various taxonomic experts.

Pat
(M.A. and Ph.D. Both with emphasis on aspects of plant taxonomy including horticultural taxonomy)

Hello, Pat. I agree that the 1917 date probably should be 1947, and I agree that something should be done to distinguish the people who name sports from the hybridizers of cultivars. In the Rose Database we do this by adding "Discovered by" to the name in the hybridizer field. Here's an example in the entry for 'Chicago Peace,' a sport of 'Peace.'

Rose (Rosa 'Chicago Peace')

If there are names that are disputed by various taxonomic experts, that is something that can be addressed in a plant comment. We have no room for that kind of information in our plant data fields.

zuzu said:Hello, Pat. I agree that the 1917 date probably should be 1947, and I agree that something should be done to distinguish the people who name sports from the hybridizers of cultivars. In the Rose Database we do this by adding "Discovered by" to the name in the hybridizer field. Here's an example in the entry for 'Chicago Peace,' a sport of 'Peace.'

Rose (Rosa 'Chicago Peace')

If there are names that are disputed by various taxonomic experts, that is something that can be addressed in a plant comment. We have no room for that kind of information in our plant data fields.

Thanks for the reply Zuzu! I'll keep that in mind about comments on names. Sounds like a winter doldrums activity 🤔
Pat