I'd like to add -Himalayan Giant- as a Trade Name.

I added -Arisaema speciosum 'Himalayan Giant'- as a synonym. That worked.

It didn't seem proper so deleted and added -Himalayan Giant- in the Trade Name field. It was approved but doesn't show up.

Do you need a cv. before trade name shows? If so any suggestions?

I haven't come across this name as a Trade name nor as a synonym Evan. It seems to be one of those names the trade had conjured up for a form of the species, there is a bigger form of speciosum.

On Aroid.org it has been listed as a 'legacy entry' which is not an officially named variety.

http://www.aroid.org/cultivars...

The RHS doesn't recognise it, there are three varieties listed of which only one is accepted and recognised.

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

I think the common name is being used, it is mentioned as "Giant Himalayan Cobra Lily" here..

http://www.bjdimages.co.uk/pho...

This site says it's Arisaema speciosum var. magnificum although their spelling is way off! That is not found in literature, Arisaema speciosum var. mirabile is which I think would be the bigger one.

http://www.edensblooms.com/pro...

Arisaema speciosum 'Himalayan Giant' is an amazing form of Arisaema speciosum, which often goes by the invalid name of Arisaema speciosum var. magnificum. It is simply a giant race of Arisaema speciosum discovered in India

http://www.ideamarketers.com/?...

I'm only finding results from the US using this, if you want to add it I would put it as a common name "Giant Himalayan Cobra Lily"

Plant Delights started using this name last year I believe. Yes, it's just a made up name not tied to a cultivar, so not correctly a Trade Designation. A. speciosum var. magnificum is how I purchased mine and that is what I think of as a horticultural synonym, i.e. one used widely in the plant trade to describe, in this case, a larger form of the species. It's at this point that I wonder what the ultimate goal of the ATP DB is. We need to be botanically correct but also responsive to how sellers are naming their plants, to a degree. I bump into this problem more and more frequently. Arisaema triphyllum subsp. stewardsonii is not recognized. Not a subspecies, variety or form. Stewardsonii looks quite different and many Arisaema enthusiasts enjoy arguing this point endlessly. One British grower was so enthusiastic he grew all of the complex to compare! I'm sure you've all come across similar examples.

Do we ignore names which are not botanically accepted? If so then someone looking for that plant they just bought won't find it here. Worse still, they may never know the botanically correct name. Search Arisaema speciosum var. magnificum in one of the taxon DB and you're met with silence. AT the RHS DB, "Name not found in literature". http://apps.rhs.org.uk/horticu...
That's something at least. Maybe we can find a home for these sorts of botanically illegitimate or fabricated names. Some of them are of great garden significance.

Common name field doesn't seem quite right.

Well, cultivar names are cultivars - they are usually (always?) registered.

Trade names are copyrighted and trademarked names that are used in place of the cultivar name. As far as I know, you can't have a trade name without first having a cultivar name, since you can't trademark a non-cultivared variety (that I know of).

Evan, I do believe that common name is the right choice when you have a name that is not a cultivar and not a trade name. Those common name fields show up right at the top and if a particular name has more thumbs than any other, then it becomes the default name that is shown when you're looking at the plant lists.

OK. That's how I'll proceed. Sorry for the rant.