There was some interest recently in a report of potentially duplicate names in the database.

I have produced the report, and you can see it here:

http://garden.org/plants/manag...

It finds and prints the duplicates that it can find, by matching genera and cultivars together.

Note that this is not a "real time" report. I ran it locally and uploaded the finished report to the URL linked above.

That's a lot of duplicates Dave!

I don't think it picked up the one I found, the first being incorrect. Can anyone delete the incorrect entry?

Marbleberry (Ardisia escallonioides)

Marlberry (Ardisia escallonoides)

http://garden.org/plants/brows...

Janet , if you click on the plant and at the bottom of edit it says ( delete )click then give reason ''duplicate'' and the moderators take care of it.

Thanks Cinda, I saw the delete button but wasn't sure what the procedure was. I'll go do that now..

I have been deleting a lot of duplicates. So which way do you want to go with many of these, delete the ones with the species names and just leave the cultivar names? Seems that would pop them into alphabetical order that way.

1: Columbine (Aquilegia caerulae 'Spring Magic Blue and White')
2: Columbine (Aquilegia 'Spring Magic Blue and White')


Some have the long species cross, maybe leave the shortened version?

1: Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii f. atropurpurea 'Atropurpurea Nana')
2: Dwarf Redleaf Barberry (Berberis thunbergii 'Atropurpurea Nana')

That has to be decided on a plant by plant basis, actually. Some plants need the species field. Others who are multi-species plants need to have no species at all, and still others have the parentage in the species field (indica x fauriei, for example).

There is no consistent formula that is applied across all plants, unfortunately.

My $.02.
Species cultivar - leave the species.
Interspecific hybrid (species cross) - delete the species.

So if Columbine (Aquilegia caerulae 'Spring Magic Blue and White') is correct, delete Columbine (Aquilegia 'Spring Magic Blue and White').

If Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii f. atropurpurea 'Atropurpurea Nana') is correct delete both and replace with Japanese Barberry (Berberis 'Atropurpurea Nana').

Didn't scroll down far enough.
What Dave said.

If Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii f. atropurpurea 'Atropurpurea Nana') is correct delete both and replace with Japanese Barberry (Berberis 'Atropurpurea Nana').

Actually we don't need to delete both, just a name edit will do.

All the irises should just be Iris and then the cultivar name.

Dave, can you just automatically delete the ones that have the species in them? No, probably not, as I have to see if they have pictures to be moved. Did I answer my own question? LOL.

I have found it very necessary to go plant by plant , and in my case research some.

Take Caryopteris clandonensis ''Lisaura''
& Caryopteris incana ''Lisaura''

they are both half right I read this plant is a cross clandonensis x incana

I just left it to someone else and moved on

Wish I could help Polly.

PollyK said:All the irises should just be Iris and then the cultivar name.

What about the Siberian Irises? We have many duplicates that have just Iris 'Cultivar' and then Iris siberica 'Cultivar'.

The proper species for siberian irises is siberica, is it not? And if these cultivars are actual siberian irises and not inter-species crosses, why leave off the species?

Cinda, Couldn't it then be Caryopteris ''Lisaura''?

It could, but I hate to leave off important information so I just choose to let someone else make the call.

I am not sure but I thought Polly and Co. were adding the classification of iris into the iris specific section, for instance, Tall Bearded, Standard Dwarf Bearded, Siberian, etc. I am not sure if that comes up with the future search function though. Would adding those classifications to the Common name section be better, as the secondary common name after Iris?

Sue, I'm not sure and that's why I'm asking Polly. But it seems like we want to be as accurate as possible, and Iris sibirica is a valid, accurate and currently in use species name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
http://www.itis.gov/servlet/Si...

And this is just one example. There are many plants that need to have the species epithet included. Excluding them makes the database incomplete.

That also applies to the Clematis section. The species Clematises don't necessarily have cultivar names, but they're currently at the end of the section, so they don't get in the way.

I was wondering if in all this species confusion if another field could be added to the data details. The information that is available could be put into a field maybe called Hybrid information?
Giant Hyssop (Agastache 'Tutti Frutti') Even the synonym for this plant really isn't correct because it is a cross between A. barberi and A. mexicana

So if we removed the synonym barberi and had a field below Synonym to put A. barberi and A. mexicana? Wouldn't that make more sense?
And move this photo over to Agastache Agastache 'Tutti Frutti', then delete this entry?

If we all took sections? and submitted the changes it wouldn't take long to fix them all would it?

I think the better solution is to follow the convention used by the professional botanists. The itis.gov site, for example, offers excellent data to check and confirm our own data.

I just want to remind everyone that those duplicate rose names are not duplicate roses, so please don't try to fix them. Each is a separate and unique cultivar.