Hi Dave, Just wanted to go over this with you.
Re the Daffodils- All daffodils entered are either accepted on rhs OR ads or both, correct?
There are botanically correct names that are stated by the International Daffodil register NOT to be accepted names.
So that is what I would like to see on our database, as well.
Is that your desire?
I am opposed to accepting every archaic name that was once mentioned in literature 250 years ago ONCE, if it is not on ADS or RHS.
Please advise.
Thanks

The RHS and ADS seem to cover cultivar registrations, but there are lots and lots of valid narcissus species out there that may not be covered by these two associations.

Check this out, for example:

http://www.theplantlist.org/tp...

I would consider any of those "Accepted" names to be valid.

But ultimately the db at ATP is not intended to be a dry academic resource. If there is a plant that hasn't been seen or grown for 250 years, I can't really see the main point of including it in the DB here.

Dave,

Yes. I agree.

I contacted the RHS Daffodil Register species contact person, who provided the following information and list.

Many names referenced in literature going back many years, are considered to be incorrect today.

Just because they appear somewhere, does not make them valid names, according to the International Daffodil Register.

That is why the Daffodil Register is trying to create a correct list using genetic testing nowadays.

Here is the list of Species on the International Daffodil Register provided to me by the RHS Species coordinator. The accepted species names are in dark.

http://www.rhs.org.uk/Plants/P...

The main point and good reason for sticking to the RHS and ADS lists, I would think,is to be accurate and not have alot of archaic data.

Because Daffodil species names can have many, many synonyms and Commom names, it can get very confusing.

So I feel it is important to stick to the list you provided from the RHS and the Register list and ADS.

That sounds fine to me.

Great, Dave.

I have found so many contorted species names, it is mind boggling.

Those lists are the only way one can sort things out into some semblance of order.

Even sellers mislabel and misspell the daffodil species bulb names they sell and then the grower thinks that is what he is growing.

Because that name might have been valid 200 years ago, then the whole issue of verifying what it actually IS comes up.

"The RHS and ADS seem to cover cultivar registrations, but there are lots and lots of valid narcissus species out there that may not be covered by these two associations"...quote dave.
"The main point and good reason for sticking to the RHS and ADS lists, I would think,is to be accurate and not have alot of archaic data"...quote sandnsea2.

These statements seem a bit contradictory.

Seems to me suggestions to the data base from acknowledged (and modern) reference sources should be acceptable Said sources being 'Bulbs' by John Bryan (2002) and 'Manuel of Bulbs' copyrighted from RHS (1995).
Are these references valid?

I think I'm looking at the word "archaic", and I agree with Janice that we don't necessarily need archaic names that aren't used anymore.

But a modern reference to a species of Narcissus cannot be considered archaic and I believe that it is valid to be in the database.

The International Daffodil Register lists all valid species names.

If you start adding names just because you saw them referenced somewhere, you lose the validity of the information your database provides.

We already agreed that the comprehensive lists appear above...RHS plantlist & Species list, International Daffodil Register and the American Daffodil Society.ADS has a very complete list of valid species names.

I'm starting to rethink this a little bit, Janice.

jmorth references a book, published in 1995 by RHS, that references a species. Is it impossible that the RHS website might miss something?

And I do have a question about other lists out there. There are quite a few species that are still accepted (not been relegated to synonym or other status) but the RHS ignores these. What do we do with that?

It seems to me like if we have a species that is being referenced in modern books, do we not want it listed in our database?

Let us put it another way.
Why do we need what the RHS and ADS and International Daffodil Registers do not recognize as valid?

What if someone buys this book "Bulbs" and then wants to research the species they read about? If they google for that, don't we want to be able to serve their need for information?

We're having that discussion on irises, too. AIS and JIS don't recognize a lot of the irises that are out in commerce, mainly ones from the Dutch growers that have never been registered. And the influx on the market from the Dutch growers of unregistered irises is getting more and more.

But lots of people have some of these, and are posting pictures of them. And we questioned if they should be allowed, and decided yes. Then we would make a notation it's not a registered iris.

dave said:
It seems to me like if we have a species that is being referenced in modern books, do we not want it listed in our database?

Modern books don't necessarily have correct information. Even an outdated RHS book might not have the most recent acceptable names as more research is done.

The RHS is the International register holder for daffodils.

What if someone buys this book "Bulbs" and then wants to research the species they read about? If they google for that, don't we want to be able to serve their need for information?

That can be covered by adding the (incorrect) species as a synonym?

You can do that with new cultivars, but NOT with species.

The species need to adhere to the above sources.

Yes, a reference to a species.....can sometimes be found as a synonym.

Check out how the lily forum handled a similar situation.
Lilies forum: Lilium 'Starburst'

Starburst is a cultivar. That is fine.
Species are quite different.