Monrovia has a series of daylilies called 'Starburst' and we don't list any of them in our database.

They are not listed in the AHS database, either. Are these unregistered daylilies, then? They have cultivar names in addition to their tradenames.

Their list is here: http://www.monrovia.com/plant-...

Scroll down to see the series I'm talking about. 'Mond' is Starburst Red and can be seen here: http://www.monrovia.com/plant-...

If these are common in the marketplace and being sold, we should list them in the database. Anybody have any thoughts?

Beware, Beware!
These are dl that like the black diamond crepe myrtle (remember that one?) are either with or without permission from the hybridizer- being sold as 'something new' or 'exclusive' but are most likely registered already under a different name.

Basically if the database doesn't stick to AHS registers, you will get Plant A registered over and over using names like Plant B! or Plant C or Plant D! and then whalla! You have the same plant listed over and over but no one is aware they are the same thing! There is really no way to ID a dl unless you grow the suspected name right next to it to compare.

I definitely want the database to stick with AHS registered daylilies.

If these are like Black Diamond then they should be added to the "Also Sold As" field for the corresponding cultivars. This way we can find them in the database when consumers who bought them come looking for them in our database.

So right about adding them to the 'Also sold as" field. The trouble is-unless they are also labeled w the registered name-there is no way to know what its registered name is-so no way to match it.
I imagine this same thing happens with alot of plants.

It could very well be that they bred these themselves. We do have a few unregistered daylilies in the database but I only allowed them as they were widely distributed and I found lots of online vendors carrying them, including several daylily exclusive nurseries. I made note of them in our database that they are unregistered.
I would leave this particular series out for the time being as these do look suspiciously as renamed ones, especially that Starburst® Susie Evergreen (Hemerocallis x 'Monie'). It reminds me of Daylily (Hemerocallis fulva 'Kwanso')
especially this part of their description "naturalizing at woodland's edge." It's sterile so they couldn't have bred it

If they become more widely grown, someone will eventually propose adding them and then we can deal with it.

That 'Mond' Starburst Red instantly reminded me of Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Red Volunteer') a very popular and excellant red.

The Kwanzo came instantly to mind to me, too, Sue. Let's just hold off for now on doing anything with these.

Need a cheap way to get a DNA test for verifying identity. A registered name is really the same as a unique serial number for a specific plant. 'Unique' is key to keeping plants separate from any other plant, so assigning or attributing another 'name' to a registered plant is a form of fraud if it is done knowingly. It's identity theft in the plant world.

Happens all the time I would imagine. There are over 79,000 registered daylilies. Lots of oldie daylilies that someone could feel they can reassign a name to, after all, the hybridizers most likely aren't around anymore to contest it plus these are not distinct enough to even put up a red flag.

I'm sure it does happen, but I'm not sure it always happens deliberately. It's identity theft if a name is given to a plant that is not yours. It deprives a buyer of any knowledge of its heritage, it deprives a hybridizer, whether alive or not, of credit and it definitely creates a 'buyer beware' situation. With any online or mail order situation, it would be easy to purchase a plant you might already have or be able to purchase at a much lower price if the new name is being marketed as exclusive and 'new'. That's deception. I personally would have major trust issues in making transactions with an enterprise who indulged in the practice.