The gaps and weird reassignments are a result of not accepting x hybrid names which are the standard way of referring to certain plants that have been known to cultivation for quite some time almost exclusively under those names. When you exclude the most useful name to describe a given plant, you invite the use of the pseudo-scientific or "Random Cultivar" names which have been invented for marketing or simply out of ignorance. Of which I would consider Aloe "Dwarf" an example, for reasons elaborated above.
People who grow aloes call this hybrid spinosissima, not "Dwarf". Putting spinosissima as a synonym for a made-up "Random Cultivar" name in the database here only invites misidentification, especially when other unrelated plants are added to the mix of images and cannot be excluded because the new name is so random. Subordinating spinosissima has the net effect of enshrining and elevating a "Random Cultivar" name above the one name which is used almost all the time to describe the plant, in actual reality. I suppose that is the cost of consistency regarding the inclusion of hybrids in the database (a worthy goal in its own right).
