I'm wondering about that, too.

I have a great deal of respect and trust in theplantlist.org people. I think if something there is accepted, then I would need to have some justification for why we wouldn't allow it here.

If you would like more information jmorth I can't help, maybe it would be a good idea if you contacted the person responsible at the RHS to find out more.

It is my impression that sources can differ, if there is not a main source such as a taxonomic holder for genera then the only other sources available to us are the Plant List and down the line. While there is a major source such as the RHS as a taxonomic holder for Narcissus personally that is the one I would use. They are the holders and as I understand it they constantly update their resources, you only have to see they have a yearly or two-yearly addendum to their last book with changes and new hybrids to know that. They are responsible for all registrations.

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

I am aware that many 'experts' take their information from other sources, hopefully the correct ones, but they will not update on a constant basis if at all. Books and websites quickly become outdated, I really doubt there are 5,000 references and if there is they will mostly have been made before the nomenclature was updated.

I can say that sites such as Flora Europea are as out of date as any, I have come across mention that Fauna Europea is not up to date on diptera.info where there are many experts in diptera and other fields including Paul Beuk who owns diptera.info and is one who is repsponsible for authentication on Fauna Europea. He will readily admit that things are not up to date there, it's a near impossible job for these people when they have jobs to do (he works in Maastricht as an entomologist}, they have lives to live and sites to run, an impossible task to keep up! Co-ordination with sources is another problem, and I guess that is one which is a problem on the Plant List too.

The person who is in charge of the Narcissus database seems to be working on it full time, I can't say that for sure but it looks to be. After all, they are responsible for compiling new records as well as checking older ones. The resources available here to such an organisation will be enormous, there will be records available from a long history of collecting.

If what we are talking about is Narcissus tazetta subsp. italicus being accepted on Plantlist.org, please note the confidence rating next to it has 1 star out of 3.

That may be a wonderful source for other plants.
Narcissus are very specialized, much like Daylilies and Roses. Would you imagine they have better information than RHS and ADS?

N. poeticus subsp. radiiflorus

dave said:I'm wondering about that, too.

I have a great deal of respect and trust in theplantlist.org people. I think if something there is accepted, then I would need to have some justification for why we wouldn't allow it here.

I can understand that Dave, but if you did accept it here what would you suggest doing with the other 'var'. which belong with the species?

The case as it is,

subsp. radiiflorus (Salisbury) Baker, Handb. Amaryll.: 12 (1888) = N. radiiflorus

---

radiiflorus Salisbury, Prodr. Stirp. Chap. Allerton: 225 (1796) (Narcissus) Section Narcissus
var. radiiflorus
var. exertus (Haworth) A.Fernandes, in Daffodil & Tulip Year Book 33: 49 (1968)
var. poetarum (Haworth) Burbidge & Baker, Narcissus: 85 (1875) ('Poetarum')
var. stellaris (Haworth) A.Fernandes, in Daffodil & Tulip Year Book 33: 49 (1968)

-

What has happened here is that someone in 1796 has discovered and named a Narcissus, "Narcissus radiiflorus"

Nearly a hundred years later, in 1888 someone else has decided the same Narcissus is a subspecies of Narcissus poeticus.

In those days they only had certain features of a plant to go on, but now there is DNA testing which can show what someone previously decided must be a subspecies of another species is in fact a species in it's own right.

The result is the first given name takes priority, it is not a subspecies of N. poeticus.

Given this, how can it be called something which it is not?

I would think that is something that is to be resolved between the various groups responsible for this.

I guess I have to ask the question, and forgive me if this was already answered: Who is the authority on Narcissus??? Is it RHS? I mean the absolute authority.

Yes Dave, the RHS is hte absolute International authority on Narcissus as you will see on the ISHS list ..

http://www.ishs.org/sci/taxlis...

I see. I need to contemplate this for just a bit. Going to sleep on it tonight.

It appears this is about adding unaccepted (by RHS standards) Narcissus plants.
That can be accomplished by adding a one letter field which becomes part of the name, (say in parentheses, after the name) indicating that it is such.

Moderators would update the field.

That way, when someone performs a search, the plant will come up with the identifier next to the name.

When a user is perusing the genus on the database, they could clearly see both the accepted and unaccepted plant names.

PollyK said: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, Please contemplate this with other genus in mind also. For consistency across the DB. Iris have the AIS. Are they the "absolute" authority? I'm sure we can come up with species discrepancies between AIS and the various taxon authorities.

Also please note in my review of Arisaema I've come across instances where The Plant List references WCSP incorrectly. I believe there is an in progress update at WCSP as this is the first time I've found WCSP references which don't agree with the WCSP site.

Lastly, there are taxonomically "invalid" names which imo have horticultural validity (i.e. different appearance). Look at the Arisaema triphyllum complex for example.