Friends, I found a contradiction and I'm not sure how to verify either one.

I was at Oake's Daylilies website and found a daylily that interested me, partly because of the name, partly because of the bloom size, and partly because of the scape size:
(https://www.oakesdaylilies.com... )

I wanted to see if there was branching info to be had, so I, naturally, came here to ATP; but I found a very different description of the flower. Now I'm confused. Which one do I believe?

Oakes says it is a 9" bloom on a 20" scape, but here it says it's a 3.5" bloom on a 20" scape.

Does anyone have this cultivar that could put an end to this mystery for me? Preferably someone who got it directly from Watchyl Daylilies (Mary Kreger) or from a source other than Oakes. I'm trying to figure out if this is a database entry error on ATP or if, possibly, Oakes maybe has a different variety than they thought?

The description for the color isn't the same as the one you posted the link to. It says,

Color: light yellow and maroon with small black eyezone above light yellow throat

It was the small black eyezone which I don't see in the picture at Oakes. Looks to me like Oake's has the wrong name on that one. It sure is pretty though!

Oh, geez! I forgot to check daylilies.org.

Thank you for being my brighter half today/yesterday, Natalie. Man do those blonde moments come on strong sometimes.

I wish I knew the correct CV name for what Oakes has.

[edited to change emoticon -- I'm not sure why it came out in text form the first time. ]

I only checked the AHS site to make sure that the information here was correct. I never checked daylilies.org. So, I wasn't as bright as you were!

If you click on the photos below the main picture, those look smaller to me, though the bloom is very similar. I don't think they are the same cultivar though. It looks to me like a very similar, but wrong, photo got added to the main listing, and the correct photos are under that. Take a look and see what you think. They really are close, but the main picture does look like a HUGE bloom! It is drool worthy!

Looks like I did check daylilies.org! Silly me! I never noticed that daylilies.org is the address for the AHS .

LoL, I wasn't going to say anything.

You are so nice and polite! You should have pointed it out. I love finding out when I've been an idiot!

I just assumed it was a blonde moment. I get those occasionally.

I'm a redhead. We're supposed to not screw up as often as I do. I've mastered screwing up!

, Natalie

Awww, I'm bummed. So the plant that Oakes has actually is Watchyl Dipsy Doodle and they simply put the wrong bloom size in the description. It even looked big in the picture, but I guess that's a lesson on being careful about what you buy. I know I would have been really disappointed if I'd purchased it and it was an itsy bitsy instead of the large, 9" bloom it was listed as. It's still pretty, though. Oh well, there are other large bloomers.

Bummer! I was hoping that it was the wrong name on that one. If you like large blooms, take a look at Thin Man. It's huge, and gorgeous!



Here is the entry in the database

Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Thin Man')

I think that one's on my wish list already, but I'll add it, if not.

Good suggestion! (I love reds.)

I didn't really love reds until this one bloomed. Now I'm a big fan! When I walked into the garden, it would stop me in my tracks!

DogsNDaylilies said:Awww, I'm bummed. So the plant that Oakes has actually is Watchyl Dipsy Doodle and they simply put the wrong bloom size in the description. It even looked big in the picture,

Did you get some more info to confirm that's the right plant? On the Oakes page it says 3.5" at the top but 9" lower down in the description. It also describes the flowers as "huge", which 3.5" isn't. The Watchyl series flowers tend to be on the large size. Out of 40 Watchyl cultivars registered, only four are smaller than 4". There are Watchyl cultivars registered as spiders but this particular one is not. Fifteen out of the 40 Watchyls are 9" or more.

One of 'Watchyl Dipsy Doodle's parents is 5.5". The other doesn't have a size registered but it's not a huge one, nor is it a small one ('Howdy') as far as I'm aware so that doesn't help much either way. There are no references that I could find in the AHS forum archives, and it's not mentioned in any of the AHS journals as far as I could tell from the search function so may not be widely grown. Have you queried it with Oakes?

Oakes emailed me back, saying they checked and it is Watchtower Dipsy Doodle, but that they had put the wrong size. I think they corrected the size at the top, but forgot to correct it in the text, from what you're saying.

It does look like a larger CV in the picture, but pictures can be deceiving--sometimes unintentionally--to the viewer.

Yes, agreed pictures can be deceiving, but it also doesn't have a black eyezone (as Natalie pointed out) which the registered one is supposed to have, and they call it a spider yet the registered one is not. Also, if it's only 3.5" why do they call it huge?

If you're looking for something similar that is big, there are at least a couple of similar Watchyls in large size:

Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Watchyl Christmas Widow')
Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Watchyl Dancing Spider')

Sue, thanks for the reminder on the missing black eyezone. That still has me wondering if it is really Watchyl Dipsy Doodle in their pictures. I haven't found another picture of it anywhere, but I didn't look long.

It looks like some sloppy editing on the Oakes site, since the only thing that seems to have changed was the first mention of size in the description. Like you said, it still says that the bloom is huge, and is also still has the size at 9" below that. I wish the form was listed in the database. That would probably make things a lot clearer! I haven't really been all that interested in spiders, so I'm not sure that they even come in that small of a size. Would you happen to know? I've looked at a lot of pictures, but have never really paid any attention to the size for the most part, though I have seen many large ones.

Maybe tracking down the hybridizer would be a good next move. It isn't a recent introduction, but not terribly old, either.

but if I look at the photo's at Oakes' website at the size of the flowers in relation to the foliage, they can't be 3.5"...
can they?


Mayo