It's a case of two different botanists providing conflicting information. The COL lists both, but in our database we don't want duplicate species entries, so we have to resolve the conflict by listing it as a synonym for only one of the plants. In time, the two botanists may agree on one option, and then we'll either change our data or leave it unchanged, depending on the final decision.
The cultivar entry probably is an invalid name, so it should be deleted from the database. Growers sometimes treat a synonym as a cultivar name because the synonym has characteristics that appear to be distinct from the accepted species. This seems to be one of those cases. I'm going to delete the entry. No harm, I'm sure, because no one has added any photos or information to the entry.
