Hi Leftwood, the yellow flowered L. concolor images would correctly be labeled L. concolor var. coridion. Nice images either way!

Jim A in Illinois

Funny you should bring that up. Back in 2012, I did submitted the image as Lilium concolor var. coridion, it was var. coridion. But later, there was a taxonomic revision, and this variety is no longer valid. The genomic differences between the yellow and the red-orange aren't large enough to warrant a varietal designation. I only discovered this after the data base moderators reclassified it, and that's why I then wrote in the photo caption "This type formerly known as L. concolor var. coridion". They adhere to the Catalog of Life species checklist in this site.

Still a little confused about what is really right, though:
http://efloras.org/florataxon....

Is this Jim A_ _ t? Welcome, welcome. Regarding the data base here, you will find a lot of mistakes. In its early days, it was made clear to me that accuracy was not the most important part. You will find tons of data and images lifted from other web sites, too, where a lot of the erroneous images originate. They have even taken from Official plant society site pages without their knowledge. But the moderators for the Lily data base I can vouch for, and they really do care about accuracy.

I welcome criticism of how we're running this website, but I won't sit idle while you pass off wrong information, putting us in a bad light.

Leftwood said:Regarding the data base here, you will find a lot of mistakes.

Do you also complain about mistakes at Wikipedia? I ask because our database is setup the same way, so that anyone can easily correct any mistakes they find. I checked your history Leftwood and despite your apparent knowledge of plants, you have opted to not submit any corrections. Your statement, therefore, comes across as insulting.

Leftwood said:In its early days, it was made clear to me that accuracy was not the most important part.

The opposite is true. If you're referring to the one single proposal you made back in 2012 that was rejected, the rejection was because your information was wrong. We're not going to approve an edit that is incorrect. If accuracy wasn't important to us, we would have approved your one proposal.

Leftwood said:You will find tons of data and images lifted from other web sites, too, where a lot of the erroneous images originate. They have even taken from Official plant society site pages without their knowledge.

To say we have data and images "lifted" from other sites is an offensive and libelous statement, and I'm curious as to your motives for writing it.

Every image on our site is here because the submitter has permission from the copyright holder to post it. Our Terms of Service ensures that, and we are diligent to verify permission was obtained when posting photos from other sources. Moreover, we have clear policies about how copyright holders can have content removed from our site and we will happily comply with all takedown requests.

In all areas of the database we are linking back to the registry pages for specific cultivars, and we enjoy a friendly relationship with most plant cultivar registries or plant societies out there.