I think I got the crocus, but 1 of the Latin names is accepted as a species but not for that particular cultivar 'Ego' so I added that species as "unknown". It's really an "also sold as" designation. Will it have to be edited again after the trade names/also sold as gets updated?

That Crocus is a real brain twister. With the new Botanical Names system do we want to list species hybrids in this way as a standard? To date I've been adding a comment with parentage/hybrid formula when a new x species name hasn't been created.

It looks to be a ligit cv. though. http://kavb.back2p.soft-orange...

Dave I just found this thread. I will check out the sempervivum ones later this afternoon. I think I know what needs to be done to fix them.
Just came in for some water and back out before it gets way to hot to work outside.

The Cyanea was okay except for the period after the "t" (but it was also a duplicate).

In reference to that Crocus entry, I originally thought the capital "A" with the tilde above it was the problem, and after that became an "x," I thought the problem was fixed. Is anyone else seeing a capital "A" instead of an "x" after angustifolius or is that one of the many peculiarities I run into because my character encoding option is set to recognize and convert Cyrillic text?

Crocus angustifolius à c. reticulatus

Beyond that, I agree with Evan that the parentage information for hybrids preferably should be added in a comment rather than on the species line.

Monica, I've looked at your proposal several times and I've hesitated to approve it because it's so very thorough that it almost falls into the category of "too much information." You've ended up with two botanical names that are marked "accepted" and two that are marked "unknown." I personally think the best option is to file this entry under Crocus 'Ego' and leave out the species. A comment could be added to provide the parentage information. Does anyone feel moved to agree or disagree with this?

That might solve some of my problems. Waiting to see how this works out.

Zuz, I found that A thing with on of the sempervivum list above. I don't even know how that got there?

I think I am still having some confusion on the synonyms. Please, some one explain to me how I should handle this?

Okay, Lynn, let's take the third one on the list. Who's J. M. Moerker and why is he listed as a synonym of Sempervivum?

Hen and Chicks (Sempervivum 'Euphemia')

It is a synonym for S. 'Euphemia'

It was set up to add synonyms to a plant entry.

Then it should be listed as another cultivar name. I'll edit it and show you the result.

Hen and Chicks (Sempervivum 'Euphemia')

As for the others, here's a working list of Sempervivum species. Only the ones in bold-face green are accepted names. Others are synonyms or unresolved.

http://www.theplantlist.org/tp...

Your list of species should include only the accepted names. The synonyms should be added to the appropriate accepted names and the entries for the synonyms should be deleted, but make sure you move all photos, comments, and other info to the entry for the accepted name before deleting them. I think our present policy is to ignore the unresolved names until we hear an update.

Something unique seems to be happening in the Sempervivum database. Arachnoides is not a species name, for example, and what's the reason for all of the different S. arachnoideum entries? What's the significance of f/Abruzzi and f/Sion, for example?

You also have some obvious duplicates in there: S. arachnoideum L. subsp. tomentosum and S. Arachnoideum subsp tomentosum, for instance. Neither is correct. The correct form would be S. arachnoideum subsp. tomentosum (leave out the "L" and include a period after "subsp").

Monica, I've looked at your proposal several times and I've hesitated to approve it because it's so very thorough that it almost falls into the category of "too much information." You've ended up with two botanical names that are marked "accepted" and two that are marked "unknown." I personally think the best option is to file this entry under Crocus 'Ego' and leave out the species. A comment could be added to provide the parentage information. Does anyone feel moved to agree or disagree with this?

According to ICBN and ICNCP recommendations, both Crocus 'Ego' and Crocus with parentage in parens are accepted. The parentage is required if the cultivar could possibly be confused with another cultivar in the same genus. Crocus x reticulata doesn't exist, therefore "unknown" and Crocus reticulata 'Ego' is also inaccurate because 'Ego' is not a cultivar of C. reticulata (that's the one that should be in a "also sold as" field).

BTW, according to ITIS and The Plant List, there are NO varieties for Brassica oleracea. All varieties are now synonyms.

But, make up whatever rules you want for your database. I don't have the time to go through long-winded explanations of every proposal I make.

First, in reference to the Brassica. According to The Plant List, there is one variety of B. oleracea that's accepted (var. oleracea). Brassica oleracea and Brassica oleracea var. oleracea are the only accepted names. That's why I removed all the rest. I haven't fixed the species names listed for the named cultivars yet, but I will fix them too.

http://www.theplantlist.org/tp...

Monica, I'm not making up rules and I wasn't trying to offend you in any way. I just think that if something "doesn't exist" or is 'inaccurate" (by your own admission), the names don't have to be included as "unknowns." I agree that the parentage is required, but I'm wondering whether it should be included in a comment rather than in the species line unless we're going to include it for every plant with parentage information. It was a question I threw out for general discussion, not a rule I was setting.

Dave, I just fixed the "A" pages of the Brassica cultivars and I was wondering whether you could write a master script to take care of a couple of the species names. I can do them by hand, but these two are quite plentiful and it would go a lot quicker if they were out of the way.

Can you program the system to select every cultivar with Brassica oleracea var. capitata as an accepted name, change that to a synonym, and add Brassica oleracea as the accepted name?

Also, any cultivars listing Brassica oleracea var. botrytis as an accepted name should be programmed to list that as a synonym and add Brassica cretica as the accepted name.

krancmm said:I think I got the crocus, but 1 of the Latin names is accepted as a species but not for that particular cultivar 'Ego' so I added that species as "unknown". It's really an "also sold as" designation. Will it have to be edited again after the trade names/also sold as gets updated?

I should think so, since that field will be a nice and "loose" field where we can put whatever crazy names might be found in the wild. This is a high priority item for me this week.

zuzu said:I was wondering whether you could write a master script to take care of a couple of the species names.

Yes, I can do that. Let me contemplate your proposal and see about scripting it in the morning.

Duplicate plant list:
Listed as duplicate but same entry: Leucanthemum x superbum 'Ice Star' Plant ID: 155558

I don't see this one in the duplicate list but came across it while browsing page by page through the iris database:

Iris ensata Silverband, Plant ID 74074

For me the first entry appears at the bottom of page 31 and then the top of page 32. It looks like everything is duplicated, photos, data etc. I'm afraid deleting one would delete both...

Loads of Leucanthemum x superbum in Dup. cv. list. Not just Ice Star.

Connie, Were you browsing the S'? Trying to replicate. How many items do you display per page?

Yes, I was browsing the S', page by page. My display number is 20...

When I do a search just with the words Iris ensata that cultivar only shows once.