One question, with this system in place can a parent plant still be created with multiple species (entered as synonyms)?

ex.
Euphorbia
sp. amygdaloides, cyparissas, martinii, myrsinites, polychroma, robbiae, rigida or whatever is appropriate.

I don't know that anything has changed but Dave will have to speak to that. I know species within a genus can be divided up for moderation and anyone could take those and moderate them if they wanted to do so. Suits me just fine.

I left out a key note Tee. You said you want to break out the hardy spurges and I hope you can because I think they're a great group. Would this be a way?

Species wouldn't be synonyms though so I guess I'm not understanding this.

This "synonyms thing" as it pertains to parent plants can be confusing. Evan is right to call them synonyms but they are actually not synonyms in the botanical sense.

So here is the definitive answer to how this works:

A parent plant is created. Which plants are the children to that entry is determined by the name of the parent plant.

1) So, if the parent plant has a genus with no species, then every orphan plant (that is, plants with no parent yet) become a child plant to that parent.

2) Now, if you want to get more specific than that, then you create the plant with a genus AND a species. And then it'll match any child plants that have the same genus and species.

Now, what if you want the plant to match more than one species, but not all of them? This is where you utilize the synonyms field.

So, let's pretend you have genus "Foo" and species "alba", "indica", and "vulgaris" and you want your parent plant to only match the first two. You would make the parent plant be:

Genus: Foo
Species: alba
Synonym: Foo indica

Now, as a side note at this point, you can make that parent plant be a parent to other plants that are not in the same genus. So you could add another synonym at this point, called:

Synonym: Bar vulgaris

And now the parent plant is a parent to:

Foo alba
Foo indica
Bar vulgaris

I see. Then the answer to Evan's question is, yes, but they are synonyms for the purposes of this database only.

Ummm ... do ya'll know how many Euphorbias there are????? Did I mention it's well over 5000 species alone plus who knows how many more cultivars. Wouldn't the list of "synonyms" on both sides (spruges and succulents) be overwhelmingly gi-normous?

I can see where this would be a way to accomplish this technically ... but the task seems mind-boggling. I have a life.

That's why we went ahead and just made one large catch all plant for Euphorbias - so you could moderate it.

But if we want to later make a parent plant for a subset group of them, we can do that, too.

(I think)

It's just that dividing them into the two types is the biggie ... telling the system manually which type each plant is, spurge or succulent, doesn't seem feasible. So subsets is probably just about the only way to go if someone wants to moderate a particular subset (which I hope they do). It's just a big old unwieldy genus ... but I like them all.

Dave,
Before I finish reading your full post I need to thank you for a good belly laugh.

Next time I really must remember that I only like genera having no more than 10 plants total in the entire thing.

I regularly sabotage myself. Especially when it comes to plants and gardening.

This redefined parent plant system looks to have huge legs with almost unlimited potential. Thanks for providing yet another path to a better DB experience than provided elsewhere Dave.

I think I understand what you mean Tee. It's like doing from scratch what various Iris Societies around the world have had codified for decades and decades. Only bigger.

Exactly Evan, you hit the nail on the head. Nothing came from anywhere else already done ahead of time.

Ummm, so you edited your post to change names. I see.

me?

How do you even wrap your mind around Euphorbia? I sometimes get a headache from Arisaema and Colocasia and they're very small.

I've had an interest in them for a long time although mostly the succulents to begin with. So they aren't strangers. Just a genus with way too many members, IMHO. But they all have those one or two things in common. So that's why they are still there. I'm told it used to be worse before they reclassified some of the subgenera. Sheesh.

But I think you may be right, I may have to "un-moderator" myself from that one. What's the point?

What would happen if within each Euphorbia entry you had say
Spurge
Succulent
and what ever else would separate them as to type. One of the boxes would have to be check marked before it would accept the entry. Then if you decide to separate them into different parent plants you could do it by that particular criteria, or what ever other criteria you set?

Thinking about that. The problem arises in having to go through so many entries that are there now and tell the system which is which, I am assuming since I don't know for sure. Once that was done, they would sort into those two types, I would think. Going forward, that's a great idea. Going back through, it's a chore that I'm not sure I can really take on at this time. I've about talked myself out of moderating this one for several reasons. Might be a case of love 'em and leave 'em.

I like that idea very much though, Lynn. Especially from a "search" standpoint. If someone searched for Succulent Euphorbias or Spurge Euphorbias, then they would find the specific type they are searching for. The idea has a lot of merit, I think. Anoather problem arises in the fact that a lot the plants of both types are also now labeled with a common name that includes the word spurge ... since botanically speaking, they are all known as spurges, whether hardy or succulent. So those common names might throw a monkey wrench into it too.

Sometimes it's best (or a least simplest) to let sleeping dogs lie as they are, I guess.

Your suggestion is intriguing. I'll sleep on it. Thanks.

We could team up and get it done if it will work.

That's the best idea I've heard yet! Appreciate it. I won't be ready to work on that one for a little while but will try to find out if that's doable. To me, that's the best idea yet if the common name thing doesn't become a major stumbling block. Well, I'll check it out sooner or later. Thanks again.