Would this also be the place to define an inter-species hybrid formula?

Those are typically entered in as species x species in the species field, are they not?

And often the species is out out alltogether in those scenarios.

Go for it! Sounds like a really great feature to me, one that encourages lengthy contributions.

Dave, I guess what I'm really talking about is parentage of inter-species crosses. Sometimes the species x species describes it, sometimes not. Some ATP DB have a section for parentage which covers this but the baseline DB doesn't.

Here's an example, although pretty obscure: http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/named...

Couldn't any needed info go into the comments section?

Evan, you probably know better than I do. It seems that these things are usually decided by whatever governing body is handling each kind of plant.

Canna hybrids are all Canna x generalis. Rose hybrids are simply Rosa without a species altogether.

Orchids are even more complicated, and they brought greges in to help solve that.

eclayne said:Canna x generalis 'Phasion' syn. 'Tropicanna' may be in the same category. Canna Tropicanna®
As I understand it 'Phaison' is the accepted cv. name now, by RHS and EU in general. Here in the states we all see it as 'Tropicanna'. I don't know how to properly identify the Tropicanna as I've been told to keep cvs. out of the synonym field, hence the common names.

Hi, Everyone!

I see the 'names issues' of Cannas is not just a topic here or in England, but widespread. It has 'bugged' me for ages, as I prefer to give anyone I sell to or who may ask for advice, the correct original names .. not JUST the registered names given by the 'big companies' to stimulate market sales.

Conversing amongst the contacts I have here in Australia, England & in the States & also in Poland .. many of them horticulturists & hybridizers &/or collectors of many yrs experience (I'm the baby in the bunch of only 10yrs experience with cannas) .. it is now viewed by 'general concensus' to use the most earliest recorded names for each cultivar/hybrid variety.

This is for 2 reasons:
1. By continually refering to the original name, it is hoped that some 'conformity' of identification will be undertaken to alleviate current name confusions.
2. Using original names of registered cultivars eg. 'Phasion' aka 'Tropicanna', alleviates the problem (here in Australia at least) of any copyright infringements that may be bought against anyone selling or advertising cannas that they have no individual copyright/registration rights to.

It is a difficult situation .. right from the beginning of collectors collecting cannas & hybridizers cross breeding various cannas, information has (mostly) been poorly recorded.
The fact that many canna were 'recognised' by different names in different countries (& still are) hasn't helped.

Then you also have the fact that some cannas had name changes during the War years because releasing them in countries other than where they originated was not 'socially acceptable' .. eg. 'Roi Humbert' early 1900's aka 'King Humbert', has been released with many different names & is well believed to be the 'original' C.'Tropicanna Black', via extensive field trials.

Many marvellous early collections have been 'lost' or destroyed, through various circumstances & even more 'modern' collections have been lost due to Canna Virus'. THEN, some collections & individual original cannas have also been 'rediscovered' as well!

Some excellent work in 'sorting' cannas, their names & origins has been done by various enthusiasts .. in sifting through volumes of what data has been recorded & old catalogues, some collectors/hybridizers have extensively trialled many canna in actual growing conditions to compare growth habits, rhisome form etc etc to unravel the canna name mess.

Of course, like 'Phasion' as I've used for an example, many canna do not freely produce fertile seed & the ONLY way to produce another plant (apart from tissue culture, which canna are not particular good subjects) is by rhisome division .. *seeds are never exact copies of 'parent' plants, simply due to pollination processes, even if they look alike.

To my knowledge, there is no other 'cultivar' of 'Phasion' simply because it has to be divided to produce another plant .. divide it all you like, rename it what you will, it is still 'Phasion' originally.

Note: There is a canna with foliage of the same colours & characteristics of 'Phasion' that has RED flowers (rather than orange), but I have very little info on that canna other than it is a 'sport' & not necessarily of 'Phasion', as 'Phasion' was it's self a 'sport' of 'Wyoming' .. ANY photos or info on the RED flowering 'version' of 'Phasion' would be much appreciated to my email [email protected] for my data base, please.

Hi, Dianne. You're responding to a thread from way back in 2011. Since then, the database has undergone some important changes. For one thing, trade names are now distinguished from cultivar names. That's why our entry for Phasion is listed under Tropicanna as the trade name, but Phasion is included in the entry as the cultivar name. We've also added the also-sold-as lines, which serve nicely for cultivar names that followed the original name but were never trademarked.

Ideally, when there isn't a trade name, the original cultivar name should be the main name in the entry. In the case of cannas, however, there is no central registry and no comprehensive list of canna cultivar names, so it's difficult to find the original names. Various canna websites contradict one another, compounding the problem.

eclayne said:Cultivar group, another concept to research. Is that what references to Italian Group Canna cultivars means?
I did find out that Tropicanna is no longer an accepted cv. name in the EU and South Africa as a result of court decisions.

'Italian Group' in cannas is a reference/grouping of the bloom type .. quite usually large floppy very 'blousey' style flowers .. common to thos cannas developed in Italy & there about. :)
I shall find you a link later & add it asap to try to define it better. eg. classifications of the Groups of canna have been 'revised' several times 'over canna history' before some 'unity' has been decided upon.