There's an entry in the database for an unregistered daylily (Ruby Stella). The single quotes identify Ruby Stella as an accepted cultivar name but according to the US Patent Office that is a trade name, the actual cultivar name being 'Berrub'. Its USPTO page is here:

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi...

I'm not sure how the database usually deals with this, but it would be correctly written without any quotes on the trade name part, the trade name in a different font (not sure how to do that on ATP) and followed by the cultivar name, i.e. Hemerocallis RUBY STELLA 'Berrub' according to Article 17 of the ICNCP.

EDIT: I figured out that I can submit a proposal to correct this via the entry and have done so. Not sure where to put the USPTO link as verification other than here.

so, they applied for a patent for this, but never registered it with the AHS? How did they get a cultivar name for it at all then? I thought daylily cultivar names had to be approved by the AHS.

robertduval14 said: How did they get a cultivar name for it at all then? I thought daylily cultivar names had to be approved by the AHS.

When you apply for a plant patent you give the plant a cultivar name. If the patent is approve then that is the legal cultivar name. Whether or not it gets registered with whatever society is irrelevant, that is still the legally accepted name.

Patented names are legally valid cultivar names, which isn't an ideal situation because it can cause confusion. They would not be eligible for AHS awards though. The idea of the ICRAs (International Cultivar Registration Authorities), which for Hemerocallis is the AHS, is to avoid duplication of names by registration but unfortunately they can't keep track of all patents etc. In an ideal world the patented ones would be registered as well.

Cross-posted, sorry Jay

I'd say there is a ton of confusion with this particular cultivar, as I've seen as many of 5 different plantings of them that were clearly not the same (height differences, bloom size differences, PLOIDY differences). Seems to me this name is used as a dump all for undesirable, but may as well sell 'em and get some return on them, random plain red cultivars).

The so called 'Stella in Red' also falls into this category, and many 'Stella D'oro' are actually not correct either. Unfortunate at best, unscrupulous at worst.

robertduval14 said:I'd say there is a ton of confusion with this particular cultivar, as I've seen as many of 5 different plantings of them that were clearly not the same (height differences, bloom size differences, PLOIDY differences).....

The so called 'Stella in Red' also falls into this category

Interesting one - Stella in Red isn't in the ATP database, it is not in the AHS registration database, and I couldn't find a plant patent for it in the USA or a trademark. It does come up a few times on a Google search though. Do you know where it originated?

Can't say that I do, but it is commonly offered in my area. A relative of mine bought one, it performs and looks a lot like 'Pardon Me', but of course, barring DNA testing, there is no way to know for sure.