Fast AND good!
>> one was listed under common name and the other under botanical ((again *Blush* ))
I've been gradually replacing my "typed in" names with database names where I notice I can.
And I tried to add some varieties to the database, and hit a wall. Seed vendors use any marketable name that tickles their fancy, and the Admins want to add only recognized cultivars. I plan to revise my list (for future swaps, maybe, standardizing my "typed in" names as much as possible.
Like I might make many entries under a generic "Bok Choy" database name, then break the links by adding at the END of the name, a vendor-specific sell-by-name. But keep it recognizably alphabetical by putting the variable text at the end of the name.
MAYBE there would be some point to some kind of two-tier-naming system for swaps. The main name field would be botanical by genus, then species, then RECOGNIZED cultivar. That would alphabetize predictably and "keep things together".
A second name field would be more like:
- non-standardized common names,
- "groups" like Bok Choy vs Napa vs Michihli, and
- unrecognizable variety names that may be vendor-specific, or just not "recognized" by the taxonomists for whose sole convenience these names apparently exist.
But that would alienate everyone who dislikes Latin and likes common names.
I doubt whether Dave would smile on the complexity of supporting two different, selectable alphabetization views for swap lists!
Plus, there is the usual common-name confusion with Brassica greens - a million variations on "B. rapa".
I thought it was bad when two nearly-identical cultivars could be listed under "Lettuce", or under "Butterhead Lettuce". And one of my chard offers lists under "Chard". The other lists under "Swiss Chard".
Let's not think about
B. rapa
Bok Choy
Pak Choi
Choy Sum
Yu Choy Sum
Taiwan Bok Choy
Shanghai Bok Choy
Chinese Cabbage (other than Napa or Michihli)
