Per this article at Wikipedia "Trade designations and marketing names" are not a cultivar name and should not be placed in quotes. Additionally they should have a different typeface (search quoted and "Presenting in text").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

How should we deal with trade names if not in the cultivar section?

Additionally Groups should be in parenthesis and begin with a capitol letter.

Do you have an example in the database of a trade name?

I agree that we should limit ourselves to cultivar names only, not trade names. Trade names can be added in the comments field, I suppose.

As for group names, the ATP database does not currently support cultivar groups. It's something that we might look into adding in the future.

edited to say: I did post some group names for Brasscias as a comment on the Brassica Parent Page.

Rosa 'Peace' Hybrid Tea Rose (Rosa 'Peace')
The referenced article mentions "...Rosa cv. 'Peace' (this is now incorrect for two reasons: firstly, the use of "cv."; secondly, "Peace" is a trade designation or "selling name" for the cultivar R. 'Madame A. Meilland' and should therefore be printed in a different typeface from the rest of the name, without quote marks, for example: Rosa Peace.)..." A different typeface used for peace.

Another example would be Canna x generalis 'Phasion', additional cultivar/trade name 'Tropicanna'. Canna Tropicanna®

I confused the Group nomenclature when submitting a sp. change to (japonica hybrid), which should be rejected.

I use the current exhibition name for roses as their official name, regardless of what their names were when they were registered or when they first appeared in commerce, so I would argue that 'Peace' is now the correct cultivar name.

Dave, I'm just putting the topic out there for discussion. Add to what Zuzu wrote the fact that if we eliminate Tropicanna as a cultivar name how will people recognize it? It's arguably the most popular Canna in the states, at least in my locale. Other DB have it as the primary cultivar name. The RHS DB lists it as a synonym. Quite an expansive entry: http://apps.rhs.org.uk/horticu...

I want to add something to reassure everyone that the info in the database is correct. Wikipedia can be a misleading source because the contributors are not necessarily experts on the subject. So, here's the story on the 'Peace' rose. I'll try to boil it down to a short paragraph.

Francois Meilland did hybridize a rose in 1939 and did name it after his mother, Madame A. Meilland. World War II then intervened. He sent the rose out of France shortly before the Nazi occupation in four diplomatic pouches. Its name then was '3-35-40.' Three of the pouches were lost and only the one sent to the United States survived. After the fall of the Vichy Government in 1944, Meilland wrote to Field Marshal Viscount Alanbrooke and offered to name the rose after him in gratitude for the liberation of Paris by the Allies. The field marshal declined the honor, saying the rose should be named 'Peace,' and that was the name when it was introduced in 1945 and it is now the official exhibition name of the rose. So, although it was called 'Madame A. Meilland' or 'Madame Antoine Meilland' for a brief time, it was also called '3-35-40,' 'Gioia,' and 'Gloria Dei.' None of these is the official name of the rose.

I think one lesson I've learned in my many years of managing a database is that you need a certain level of flexibility, especially when trying to make a database of all plants in cultivation. No database can be one-size-fits-all.

Zuzu makes a perfect case in point here. And in cases like this, this is one reason why we have such strength in our various moderators. Those who are really passionate about a particular plant take on a moderator role over that plant and then their knowledge and experience is poured into that plant in the database and we get the most accurate and up-to-date info possible for that plant type.

But there are indeed times when it may indeed be appropriate to have a trade name field, especially this 'Phasion' variety of Canna (which I also have in my garden!)

This is really interesting to me. The further we get in our discussions, the more I realize how much the database needs to have additional fields and structure in order to accommodate the various cases out there, and this is something I am certainly willing and even keen to do. The DB we launched some time ago is already miniscule compared to what we have today, and I predict that the DB of January 2012 will be much bigger and more expansive than what we have today.

We definitely need a field opportunity (similar to "Cultivar names") in which we can put "Trade names", and then those trade names are displayed along with the plant name using the proper convention.

I also think we're going to need a "Cultivar Group", as that is quite useful information, more useful than the latin family name, in my opinion.

I'm going to soon have a pretty big interruption that'll last several days (the rest of the week, actually), so I'd like to put these off until next week. Of course, please don't let that stop the discussion, but just be aware that my participation will be slightly limited starting late tomorrow.

Great info Zuzu.
Thanks Dave.

>> I also think we're going to need a "Cultivar Group", as that is quite useful information, more useful than the latin family name, in my opinion.

Agreed, except that sometimes the Family name helps me go from TOTAL ignorance to 99% ignorance. "Oh, one of THOSE!"

>> you need a certain level of flexibility,
>> No database can be one-size-fits-all.

Totally agree! few things in the real world fit perfectly into simple categories, and living things are as hard to contain in categories as they are in fields or streams.

I think that the concerns about "sort order" will fade when we have many search features.

I can't wait to see the new features you are creating for us Dave.

Interesting.

Way back in the days of the dinosaurs, when it comes to the exhibition name of a rose, I was taught I must refer to the current version of Modern Roses put out by the ARS, or the little ARS handbook for the year which would be even more up-to-date. It was the gold standard here in the USA for names when I was a rose judge. If someone didn't use the name in that book, they couldn't enter the rose in any ARS affiliated rose show. No matter how gorgeous a rose, if the name was wrong, it was disqualified.

I've been assuming that is what is used for the ATP database?

The closest thing I've found online available to non-ARS members is HMF, but I have noticed a couple of mistakes.

If you're talking about mistakes in the database, tell me about them, Tabby, but if you mean mistakes on HMF, I agree. It's not a reliable source. Oddly enough, neither is Modern Roses, which describes some of the roses I've found without much trouble as "extinct."

Here's a link to an RHS book excerpt re: scientific names.

The last section discusses "Trade designations and trade marks"

http://apps.rhs.org.uk/rhsplan...

In the Echinacea I see the trade names are being used as the common name . Example= Sundown ( Echinacea Evan Saul). This does make the plant easy to find by it's more familiar name.

That does seem like an effective solution, Bob.

Using the common name field sounds doable. No extra fields.
Would a slight modification be appropriate?

ex.
Coneflower Sundown or Echinacea Sundown
Canna Tropicanna

I was thinking that putting Coneflower in front might be more appropriate. Thanks.

Right, isn't "Coneflower" the common name for all Echinaceas?