Viewing post #907185 by sooby

zuzu said:We can't list the botanical name of that cultivar as Hemerocallis fulva var. rosea because H. fulva var. rosea has been reclassified as a synonym for H. fulva var. fulva.

http://www.catalogueoflife.org...

In general, we can't use the same species list as the AHS because the AHS list (Dr. Plodeck's list) is outdated. It includes many obsolete names that have been reclassified as mere synonyms. In addition, our species entries have Latin botanical names and do not include non-Latin elements (such as Margaret Perry), and the AHS species list is mistaken in some cases. H. littorea is an accepted name, for instance, but the AHS list classifies it as a synonym for H. fulva var. littorea.

http://www.catalogueoflife.org...

I don't really understand that Catalogue of Life page, how could fulva var. rosea, a pink diploid single flower, ever have been a synonym for flava (diploid yellow single flower), kwanso (triploid double flower), or var. maculata, another single orangey triploid?

Re Dr. Plodeck's list, it doesn't have anything to do with the AHS. The AHS database early records are based on the Descriptive catalog of Hemerocallis clones, 1893-1948 (not sure if this link to it will work but I'll try it):

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cg...
and then the Hemerocallis check list, 1893 to July 1, 1957. American Hemerocallis Society
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cg...

I agree there could be some quibbles with Dr. Plodeck's species list, but according to Tropicos, H. littorea is the basionym for H. fulva var. littorea:
http://www.tropicos.org/Name/1...

Daylily taxonomy is a real can of worms