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.
