I've lost track of which thread had started discussing flowers patented under different names (Maurice, I think you were in on this one!) and later this evening I was looking at Daylily pictures on Pinterest and saw this:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...

They 're-named' Ruby Spider as "Rainbow Rythym"! I must be reading it wrong, right? How could they re-name beloved Ruby Spider? She's iconic...or atleast I think so...it's just not right.

I don't know what thread it is, but here is a place where they re-name daylilies. 😒
http://www.allamericandaylilie...

I think those posts can be seen in: The thread "Rebloom in the North" in Daylilies forum Maybe @Wildbirds will see this and give more information on how the system works. Seems odd to be able to trademark a plant that has been in commerce for a while and has already had distribution before the TM. I can only grasp that the same daylily is being offered with two different names. I'm not clear on the process beyond that. I think, also, that more than one commercial entity does this. I'm presuming that the company that has put the new TradeMark on Ruby Spider and added a prefix name could prevent another company from using the same plant. It's not good to be presumptuous, though.

I've ranted about this forever! I will NEVER buy a plant from that has a tag from that seller, and I complain loudly to anyone who sells their plants. I bought one, because I loved it, and found out later that it wasn't what they were calling it. They had Dream Souffle on the tag, but it turned out to be Dublin Elaine. I am furious that they do this and get away with it!

I just posted a not so nice note on that picture on Pinterest. I invite everyone to do the same! They shouldn't be allowed to do this!

kidfishing said:I don't know what thread it is, but here is a place where they re-name daylilies. 😒
http://www.allamericandaylilie...

I looked at the site. The first (and only) one I checked was Lady Lucille. Their photo doesn't remotely resemble the ATP database photo for Lady Lucille.

I've been through their pictures several time, trying to figure all of them out, and I can't. They have put AHS registered names on a few of them, but on the wrong one.

The bright orange daylily known to many of us as "Lady Lucille" is unregistered. It has been around for many, many years - - probably introduced in the 1970's or perhaps before that. What the site in question appears to have done is trade mark the name and list the date they did so on their page (2006) which makes it look legitimate as a registered cultivar to those who don't know otherwise. There was a daylily registered with the AHS in 2012 that actually has the name H. Lady Lucille (Warrell, 2012) that looks nothing like the orange one. The ATP database correctly shows the 2012 registered daylily. It appears that this company has done the same thing with some of the other older daylilies, even AHS registered daylilies. Look at Lavender Vista. There is no photo in the AHS database, but when you Google it, you get many pictures that look just like the All American picture and one or two that have a red-purple eye as described in the AHS registration. The picture in the ATP database does not have the red-purple eye.

Also, based on what their web site says, All American Daylilies is a brand name used to sell their products and has no connection with or endorsement from the AHS or any other daylily organization. They say all "All-American" daylilies have bee tested and grow well across 5 USDA hardiness zones. Their advertising methodology is, at best, misleading.

A lot of what they have seems to be labelled correctly (and happen to be ones that Oakes' also carries and that I've been sifting through recently on their website, which is the only reason I'm familiar with them).

Here are the ones that seem accurate to me (in terms of names matching up to the pictures):
Buttered Popcorn
Lavender Vista
Persian Market
Red Volunteer
Lady Elizabeth
Miss Mary Mary
Chorus Line
Frankly Scarlet
Leebea Orange Crush
Judith
Bitsy
Lullaby Baby
Starstruck
Black-eyed Stella

They drastically changed some of the registration year information on those cultivars, though.



Here are the daylily names that appear to be wrong or in question:
Summer Valentine
Dream Souffle (is this a different 'souffle' cultivar, like "Peach Souffle," do you suppose?)
Toy Cameo (maybe "Cameo Cupcake"?)
Plum Perfect - what's odd about this is that there's the same picture that Oakes' Daylilies has...so maybe the ATP database picture is wrong? (according to AHS, though, the ATP database picture is correct and both Oakes and All American Daylilies have the wrong cultivar pictured.)


Four name-changers (or mis-labels) isn't as high as I thought it would be...but that's still crazy that they change the names. My neighbor could go around telling everyone she has 'blah and blah' daylily and for generations it will get passed down as the wrong thing. Way to wreck the daylily history books.

I just posted that and then realized that on a couple of them I was comparing them with the information on Oakes' Daylily website and not the AHS. Oops!

They change the list of ones that they sell regularly. Seems like at least, yearly, but sometimes more often. The list you just posted isn't the same as when I was looking.

Without a doubt, their Dream Souffle is really Dublin Elaine. That is the one I bought. I actually got it to use for hybridizing, but when I checked the AHS and database here, there was no Dream Souffle. That is what got me looking into it further. I posted a picture of mine, and everyone said it was Dublin Elaine. But, that was a couple of years after I bought it, and I refused to use it for hybridizing until I learned the real name. Back then, I was doing a lot of research on their plants, trying to figure out which ones had the real name on them, and very few did. This was maybe 5 or 6 years ago. I would still never ever buy a plant from them, because of this. I view it as theft. If they want to put their own name on a plant, they need to do all of the hybridizing work themselves. There is no mention that I can find of the actual name of these plants attached to any of them, where they have put their own name on them! It is just very wrong to do this.

I don't know but if that is Ruby Spider i am going to get this weekend. What a gorgeous red.

I confess I've gotten sort of lost here. Is everyone talking about the same company? It seems there are several.

In the Rebloom In The North thread @Wildbirds says "App's Endless Heart is marketed as Jersey Early Bird Cardinal with over 100 days of bloom predicted. (I expect more such everblooming cultivars to come on the market under the Jersey Early Bird marketing label.)"

Then @DogsNDaylilies referred to a Pinterest post which seems to be a company that is marketing Proven Winners though I can't tell if that is a company name or just something being marketed under that name. This is the one that started this thread.

Then Ashton and/or Terry gave the link http://www.allamericandaylilie... which seems to be where the thread is right now, though I'm not really sure. Are all these the same?

The one called Toy Cameo is in fact Pink Playmate. I purchased it some years back and there was a tag attached to it saying it was being marketed under the name" Toy Cameo" but I have always sold it as Pink Playmate which is in the AHS database. Summer Valentine I purchased from Oakes as Blushing Summer Valentine. Also in AHS database.

Like Donald I'm a bit confused as to the companies/websites/plants involved here, but I find this interesting. I'm just going with the general understanding that there is a practice of re-naming cultivars and marketing them with only that changed name shown.

These companies are changing the daylily name to make a buck. They quite possibly put a lot of time and expense into good research about the bloom time and viability of particular daylilies in different climate zones, but if they just release that information with the real daylily name, many if not most people will just buy the daylily from their favorite seller—and these companies don’t get the sale. The only way for them to get the sale is to make it look like the only way to get the daylilies is from them. So they change the name and then a daylily with that name can only be purchased from them.

I can still remember my mindset from just a year ago when I was a daylily newbie and at that time daylily names were irrelevant to me. The consumers these companies are marketing to and selling to are most likely similar. These consumers go to these websites or their local Home Cheapo, buy a couple daylilies, and put them in their landscape. Whether the name of the daylily is changed or inaccurate or not does not really hurt them.

But the story does not really end there. If these consumers get serious about daylilies and start to talk with others about daylilies they could end up in confusing situations. For example, they could think they are talking about two different plants when they are really talking about the same one. If they start hybridizing, a re-named daylily could become a problem as the parentage would be unknown.

The more significant issues involve what is “right”. The deception involved with marketing re-named daylilies certainly seems “wrong”. The more one understands the history of a particular plant, and its hybridizer, the more one will feel that changing its name is wrong. It would be right to think of the hybridizer who put in the time, money, and effort to develop the plant. It is only right that they get credit for their creation by having the correct name of the daylily to link back to them. The bottom-line seems to be that the practice of re-naming dayliies is just deceptive and wrong, and a business model based upon it is simply not a good one.

The only legitimate option these companies have is to get exclusive daylilies:

• Develop their own hybrids and patent them


• Purchase the rights to new cultivars and patent them


• Grow cultivars that are very good and yet quite rare and otherwise generally unavailable

LarryW said:The bright orange daylily known to many of us as "Lady Lucille" is unregistered. It has been around for many, many years - - probably introduced in the 1970's or perhaps before that. What the site in question appears to have done is trade mark the name and list the date they did so on their page (2006) which makes it look legitimate as a registered cultivar to those who don't know otherwise. There was a daylily registered with the AHS in 2012 that actually has the name H. Lady Lucille (Warrell, 2012) that looks nothing like the orange one. The ATP database correctly shows the 2012 registered daylily. It appears that this company has done the same thing with some of the other older daylilies, even AHS registered daylilies. Look at Lavender Vista. There is no photo in the AHS database, but when you Google it, you get many pictures that look just like the All American picture and one or two that have a red-purple eye as described in the AHS registration. The picture in the ATP database does not have the red-purple eye.

Also, based on what their web site says, All American Daylilies is a brand name used to sell their products and has no connection with or endorsement from the AHS or any other daylily organization. They say all "All-American" daylilies have bee tested and grow well across 5 USDA hardiness zones. Their advertising methodology is, at best, misleading.

Hi Larry,
I bought the orange 'Lady Lucille' when it was introduced years ago by Blooms of Bressingham. This was long before AHS approved the registration of Warrell's 'Lady Lucille' in 2012 which I also purchased.

I can confirm that the Blooms of Bressingham introduction is hardy in southern Maine (zone 5 - 6). Actually, all of their "Lady..." series daylilies are hardy and wonderful!)

Warrell's 'Lady Lucille' is hardy in Southern Maine and blooms intermittently for me over a three week period July through August.

I like and recommend either of these daylilies for southern Maine.