Excuse me, and thanks for the link. I guess it's been more than a year since I checked the botanical name of this plant although your note did inspire me to check again now. There is a discrepancy between the source linked above and many others, including USDA plants database and RHS, sources that should be considered reliable. It's likely that a recent change (which this seems to be) hasn't trickled-down into these other databases, although a year is forever in terms of maintaining an accurate info database. I am not familiar with the linked source but it seems to be a US, non-international entity, and the website says, "TIS does not intend to serve as a forum for cutting-edge taxonomic classifications." So I'm not sure where this change, according to them, comes from, or why it's not indicated in/by other sources, or which source is supposed to supply info, and which just absorb the trickle of info to supply to us, just the lowly millions of people actually trying to use these constantly changing names... to which the latest genetic info could have been appended in addition to any other facts about the plant which aren't necessary to convey in a name.
