We have s. wagneriana in the database, but we have only s. wagneriana and there are two forms, the 'White Bract Form' and the 'Pink Bract Form'. How do we want to handle this? I have pics for both....

Are these cultivars? As in Salvia wagneriana 'White Bract'?

How do other databases out on the web treat these two?

Wiki states the flowers vary from "bright red to rose to pinkish cream, with highly colored bracts and calyces that are different colors than the flower."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

I guess the bracts would also vary in colour?

This site says there is both pink and white forms, but it also hybridises with other species.

http://www.robinssalvias.com/b...

I don't think could count on wiki.

Robin knows what he's talking about, but only has the one form and doesn't mention whether or not it's a cultivar. I'll e-mail him. I'm having no luck yet finding another database as such that lists both. Robin or Rich Dufresne should know...I'll e-mail both later.

Thanks Sherry, we'll go with what he says.

I found a site by searching for Rich Dufresne, his site isn't current though. (He has a new site with the link)

http://www.worldofsalvias.com/...

They are Salvia experts, and have both the pink and white bract forms as S. wagneriana.

http://www.cabrillo.edu/academ...

I've asked Rich and Robin and a few other people regarding this...waiting to hear back. .The salvias interbreed just a tad....lol..

I pay more attention to salvia as a genus than any other group, so I don't know if the same problems arise, but the salvias seem to me to be always in a state of flux...lol..some mis-named, going by different names in other countries, newly discovered and as yet un-named, hybridizing frequently...so I'm used to s. wagneriana 'pink bract form', s. wagneriana 'white bract form', s. coccinea, 'tall form', s. coccinea 'lavender form'., etc. Perhaps it is difficult in certain circumstances to follow the same databse format, I don't know.
What Rich has to say about it is,
"The key to separating the two different forms would be to have the provenance or at least a solid reference to the same. That information would allow the assigning of a varietal name. Unfortunately, few people keep these records or have access to them. These two forms should have their provenance available at a California Botanical Garden or herbarium."
So, is there a way of listing the 'forms' in the entry for that plant without it being a cultivar? I'm absolutely certain that you guys know more about this than I do....lol..

I have the same problem with an Impatiens Sherry. Impatiens omeiana, there was a very different looking plant discovered not so long ago which there was some uncertainty about but thought to be the same species, both leaves and flowers are quite different. In the RHS it is listed as "Impatiens omeiana silver-leaved, but the "silver-leaved" is neither in italics as it's not part of the species epithet nor is it a cultivar, so it is given simply as a description as I guess there has been no other way of putting it but I guess it is a form.

The only way I can think of putting it in the database is to add "silver-leaved" in the common name field but that doesn't seem quite right either unless I could put the full name! I found on one nursery here selling it that it has been shown to be I. omeiana. They mention the flowers being the same, but they are not! I think the only way to do it is to put the difference in the comment with the photo, and make a comment for the entry.

http://www.plantsforshade.co.u...

Yes, unfortunately it muddies the info even more when some nurseries and some growers give incorrect names or info and that gets passed along also. In the salvias, I seem to see a lot of,
What is this plant really?"...lol..