In the NGA database is a daylily called Lady Elizabeth. The plant info is for the AHS registered 'Lady Elizabeth'. Unfortunately there is a trade-named Lady Elizabeth, patented cultivar name 'Robbobeli', see patent here:

http://www.google.com/patents/...

The registered 'Lady Elizabeth' is yellow. The pictures in the NGA database are of a white daylily, presumably the trademarked Lady Elizabeth ('Robbobeli').

That would make the NGA plant info from the registered AHS daylily but the pictures of the patented unregistered 'Robbobeli'. I'm not sure how we go about suggesting edits in this case? Do we even continue to list the unregistered but trademarked and patented one?

I also suspect the rust rating more likely relates to the unregistered 'Robbobeli'.

Edited to include advertisement showing trademarked Lady Elizabeth ('Robbobeli'):
http://www.americandaylily.com...

Is that unregistered one in wide circulation? We have allowed a few like that with the notation in the top info section that it's unregistered. (John Rice's 'Me & My Shadow, some Goldner ones and some widely distributed landscape daylilies)
If it is fairly common, I can create an entry for it and move the images over and also let the member know why they were moved.

@Calif_Sue
How about the local growers reports and the event reports and the Daylily of the Day, all those will be affected by the change.

Watch out for this place, because they take registered cultivars and rename them their own names and pass them off as 'theirs' or 'new'. Which they aint.

Larry? Not sure what you are asking. How would adding an unregistered daylily entry affect those things?

Ahhh, I see it was Plant of the Day. Well, all those images do not belong to that entry. I can edit the entire entry to leave those links in place, making it the unregistered entry and then recreate the registered one again.

@Calif_Sue
If anyone did a local growers report, or added events (when a scape was sent up, when the plant bloomed, etc) all that data would be shown as applying to the wrong plant, if they had the patented version and not the registered version. So people reading that info would be baffled by all the misleading info.
I have 'Frankly Scarlet' on my want list, and just discovered that some members here were only getting 3.5 to 4 inch blooms, now Sooby has informed me that there is also a second version of this plant floating around and one is a tet and one is a dip. Very confusing.

Yes, Larry, thanks, I figured it out after posting and that is why I made my suggestion for my edit above. Any input Sue @sooby before I proceed?

Certainly safe to go ahead with Lady Elizabeth ('Robbobeli') since the patent gives all the information. Frankly Scarlet is more difficult. I've seen it written with TM after the name which implies it is some other cultivar. The description doesn't match the AHS registered cultivar with that name. I also don't know the ploidy for sure, I just remember someone telling me they thought it was a dip. I did another internet search but couldn't find that documented anywhere so far. If it is a registered or patented cultivar being sold under the TM the sellers should really give the cultivar name as well in single quotes but they don't appear to follow the ICNCP, unfortunately. Plum Perfect is another one where there are two daylilies with the same name in circulation.

Edited to add, here is an example where a seller hasn't correctly rendered the name, Plum Perfect should not be in single quotes if it is only TM because a TM is not a recognized plant name under the code of nomenclature - see caption under the picture:
http://www.connonnurseries.com...

Reminds me of Joan Senior.

Entry has been updated and is now known as the cultivar name of Robbobeli with an also sold as Lady Elizabeth, just can't figure out how to remove reference of the child plant, it may be something @dave has to manually remove. When you click it to the child plant, 'Sunny Boy', the parentage links to the correct registered Lady Elizabeth.
So Dave, the reference to a child plant listed under Robbobeli needs to be removed please.

Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Robbobeli')
Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Lady Elizabeth')

Sue, all the parentages of all the plants in the database are refreshed every night. So let's give it 24 hours to see if it will automatically fix itself. If by this time tomorrow the child plants aren't properly updated, let me know.

Frillylily said:Watch out for this place, because they take registered cultivars and rename them their own names and pass them off as 'theirs' or 'new'. Which they aint.

Here is the link to a post at DG I commented on a few years back and is about this same company. I highly suspect Frankly Scarlet went this way as well. SO that would mean there is a REAL registered FS, AND a registered dl that is NOT FS which All American Daylilies simply named FS because it fit their 'theme' of names. Ordering the plant for a reputable source after inquiring about it's bloom size/habit ect should ensure receiving the registered version.

You have to scroll down to the last 1/4 of the page.

As I posted in the other thread in the Daylily forum, unless they are genetically tested and DNA confirmed as being the exact same daylily, one cannot make such blanket statements just based on a similar looking one. This nursery and Oakes may have some affiliation with each other. It would be considered slander stating such in public without any proof. Please be careful.

Calif_Sue said:Reminds me of Joan Senior

Thanks for sorting out the database entries According to the plant patent, 'Robbobeli' is 'Joan Senior' x ' Sea Gull', so good eye