Dave, @MikeD (please comment Mike) has requested custom data fields for the following databases (additions to Tomatoes and Nicotiana).

The Artichokes Database
The Asparagus Database
The Beans Database
The Beets Database
The Brassicas Database
The Cantaloupes Database
The Carrots Database (please capitalize Carrots)
The Cucumbers Database
The Gourds, Squashes and Pumpkins Database
The Eggplants Database
The Lettuces Database
The Nicotianas Database
The Okra Database
The Peas Database
The Peppers Database
The Potatoes Database
The Radishes Database
The Southern Peas Database
The Spinaches Database
The Database
The Database
The Watermelons Database
The Database
The Tomatoes Database

New data fields:
Hybridizer (wb) Perhaps Originator is a better term since it includes Discoverer
Year Introduced (wb)

Heredity
-Open Pollinated
-Hybrid
-GE/GMO

History (wb)
Country of Origin (wb)

Thanks,
Evan

Here's my thinking: the custom data fields were designed because some plants have unique characteristics that are separate from other kinds of plants. For example, most plants don't need to have ploidy indicated, but in daylilies it's very important so we have it there.

At this point, asking for the same fields in 24 different custom databases tells me that these fields really should belong in the primary plant details.

Hybridizer should be a universal field among all cultivars. Nearly every cultivar has a hybridizer that could be listed. Same with history and year introduced.

Heredity is universal among all vegetables.

I propose we make all these fields primary fields, and that I then phase it out of the databases that currently have it in their custom architectures.

We've had this discussion before, but moving the Hybridizer and Year of Introduction fields into the primary plant details section wouldn't be an improvement to the database, at least from my perspective.

The thread "Question about the History Field - Field Addition Request" in Plant Database forum

We now have a new point to bring to the debate, though.

The primary improvement would be that it would stop me from having to maintain duplicate architectures for more than 25 different custom databases. Once we get to that point, it really becomes a more universal kind of data field and shouldn't be duplicated. It's not good architectural design to have a database that has these fields copied into all these different areas. It makes maintenance much more difficult, too. If we change something, I'd have to go and change it in 25 places, affecting a lot of different areas.

There may be a compromise, though. We currently have 2 main categories of data fields:

1) Primary Data Details (Affects all plants)

2) Specific custom details (affects just the plants in each custom database)

We could add a third one that is common to all plants, and called something like "Registration and Genetics" or something like that. In there we can include the parentage details, hybridizer, introduced date, registrar link, GMO/Hybrid/OP/etc, and so forth.

That would keep all those paperwork type details in one area that is uniform across the database.

Hi All,

@Dave, since all of the wild plants, ornamentals, etc. are outside the focus of my work, I don't have any input on whether or not these additional requested data points are applicable globally. And as Kent points out, we have had that discussion back in February and the consensus seemed to be that they would not be desireable.

However, for the custom databases mentioned at the beginning of the thread, these fields would make the information more useful to users and would mirror what folks are used to seeing in commercial catalogs as well as descriptive information listed in trade and scientific journals. Specifically the fields that should be in the food crop databases are:

Year Introduced

Heredity
-Open Pollinated
-Hybrid
-GE/GMO

History
Country of Origin

My feeling on the "Hybridizer" field is mixed. Yes, if it is not too much trouble to add, it would make searching for the work of a specific seedsman interesting, but the information, particularly in regards to old family heirlooms or old commercial releases, is often lost to history (not available). In the tomato and tobacco databases, I have simply added it to the narrative in the history field.

As far as deciding on the title, I have never seen it referred to as "hybridizer" but then I am primarily working with food crops. The convention used is "Breeder" for the person responsible for the variety (whether they actively bred it, discovered it or selected it), and "Vendor" for the company that introduced the variety into the trade.

In regards to the GE/GMO option under "Heredity", this does not need to be in any of the aforementioned databases right now except for Zea, Eggplant, Peppers, Potato, Soybeans, Squash, Brassica, Beet, Tomato, Tobacco. I am sure that there is work being done on many other species, but those can be added later as need arises. (I have omitted rice, cotton, wheat, etc. from the list because they do not at present have custom databases).

Hope this helps.

Mike

How universal are these fields, though? Many of the plants in the database are not cultivars, perhaps not a majority but certainly a substantial minority at the minimum. Even of the cultivars, many (most?) are not hybrids. In those cases, a "Hybridizer" field is going to seem odd. Also, Year of Introcduction is often not as simple a thing as one would think it should be. The American Iris Society, for example, treats year of introduction and year of registration as separate data points. Many official registers for other groups of plants do not.

Well, keep in mind Kent that if a plant has nothing entered into a specific data field, it simply doesn't show up. So it would be used for the plants where it's applicable and disregarded for the others.

I agree with Kent and I can only repeat what I said once before when we had this conversation:

"I'm not opposed to the addition of these fields, but I do question the need to migrate the data from the fields in the custom databases. They're all set up in different ways. Some include the country of origin. Others have special wording ("Discovered by ...") for sports. I'm sure there are other items of this information that are specific to the particular type of plant. I personally appreciate the custom databases and I think excessive uniformity in data entry methods could rob them of their special character."

dave said:Well, keep in mind Kent that if a plant has nothing entered into a specific data field, it simply doesn't show up. So it would be used for the plants where it's applicable and disregarded for the others.

Certainly, but that wasn't entirely the point I was trying to make. There were actually three, but I obviously made them poorly, so perhaps they should have been more clearly separated?

1. Many plants in the database weren't bred by anyone, so the Hybridizer and Year of Introduction fields aren't really "universal" in any sense.

2. Even among plants that were bred by someone, "Hybridizer" will be the appropriate term for some, but certainly not all of them

3. Year of Introduction, which seems like it ought to be a simple and straightforward concept, is actually handled rather differently by various plant societies.

Alright, fair enough. We'll continue to add these on a custom-by-custom basis.

dave said:We now have a new point to bring to the debate, though.

There may be a compromise, though. We currently have 2 main categories of data fields:

1) Primary Data Details (Affects all plants)

2) Specific custom details (affects just the plants in each custom database)

We could add a third one that is common to all plants, and called something like "Registration and Genetics" or something like that. In there we can include the parentage details, hybridizer, introduced date, registrar link, GMO/Hybrid/OP/etc, and so forth.

That would keep all those paperwork type details in one area that is uniform across the database.

I really like the idea of having the plant history information all in one place:
Hybrid: Yes
Hybridizer: Kevin C. Vaughn
Country of Origin: (US) United States
Year of registration: 1976
History of species or Cultivar:
Parentage: Olivette x Gloriosum
There could be an entry for 'Discovered by' or that information can be entered in 'History of species or Cultivar?
It would be great to have that information all in one spot in the data entry for the plant.
It would see that there would be some way to make this work for the ATP database?
For sempervivum either Breeder or Hybridizer works, and the date is when it was introduced on the market. Maybe there is a way

Fields would be left blank if that information is not available

There really must be a way to make this work for everyone?

I am pleased to report that this work is finished. I made a new grouping of plants called "Vegetables" and that grouping includes the 24 custom databases mentioned in the first post of this thread. I then added these options to that group.

You can see an example of it in action here:

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum 'Kellogg's Breakfast')

Notice the data fields start with "Vegetables" then shows the "Data specific to Tomatoes" and finally it then shows the "Primary Plant Details."

Wow, Dave that is amazing. Going to look at cucumbers. And green bean, oh and some of the squash.
The amount of information beats anything I have found on any site.

Dave, Please add these data fields to the following custom databases.
The Elephant Ears (Alocasia) Database
The Elephant Ears (Colocasia) Database
The Elephant Ears (Xanthosoma) Database

Thanks

eclayne said:Dave, Please add these data fields to the following custom databases.
The Elephant Ears (Alocasia) Database
The Elephant Ears (Colocasia) Database
The Elephant Ears (Xanthosoma) Database
Thanks

Which fields?

Sorry Dave, the crop plant data fields. The thread "Multi database data fields" in Plant Database forum
While the heredity section will likely remain blank for most entries the other fields will be useful. All three of these databases contain crop plants.

Year Introduced

Heredity
Open Pollinated
Hybrid
GE/GMO

History

Country of Origin

Hybridizer or Originator

I'll do it.

This is done.

Thank you sir

My pleasure!