Would this be an acceptable entry?

http://www.mailordernatives.co...

Mine is in bloom and I would like to add a photo or two.

I found one other listing for R. austrinum 'Pure Yellow' on this page http://www.superiortrees.net/P... so perhaps it needs an entry in our database?

I'm kind of unclear what the reason is for finding an internet link to a plant that is not yet in the database. Wouldn't just a photo of the tag be sufficient to (I guess) prove it exists? That would likely show the grower as well, for further confirmation.

@Bonehead Deb, sometimes tags/labels get lost.

Once in a while growers make up a name for a plant, and it's not a legitimate name, even if it's on a name tag. Finding it in multiple sources is a better way to go.

Many plants are added when the growers and nurseries publish their catalogues for the new season. The plant tag is used as evidence of the plant's existence in some cases, but people adding new plants to the database don't necessarily own the plants and wouldn't necessarily have access to the nursery tags, and even the ones that own the plants wouldn't necessarily have a camera and be able to take a photo of a tag.

But if you do have a valid tag for a plant, wouldn't a photo of that contain enough info to 'verify' the existence? I assume that is the point of linking a web site. Frankly, I have more faith in a plant tag than whatever marketing info one might find on the internet.

Same here! I think birds and squirrels move them.

Yes, Deb, it usually is sufficient proof, and some people do use photos of tags when they propose the addition of new plants. You can see threads in this forum where people are asking that a plant be added on that basis. The admins still have to look the plant up on line, however, to make sure the name is spelled correctly on the tag.

Karen, I thought I was responding to a different thread and wrote over my previous response, which I thought made little sense to this discussion. But then I saw your reply and realized lots of folks put the tags directly into their gardens so I could have just left it there. Sorry for the confusion.

Zuzu, so what would be the most reliable on-line resource to be sure the spelling is accurate? Not trying to be a pill, actually trying to make your life easier. As I understand it, the Catalogue of Life doesn't list cultivars, correct? Maybe that Missouri place? I don't even know what that is other than I have it bookmarked as a good resource.

The Missouri Place is probably MOBOT, the Missouri Botanical Garden. Sometimes employees at botanical gardens make mistakes too ... with putting incorrect labels on plants and misspelled names.

So what is the best way to verify a name is spelled correctly? Or a plant is labeled correctly? It can get pretty squishy I guess.

Should I then just post the pic as plain ole austrinum?

@Calif_Sue is administrator for the Rhododendron/Azalea database so she will be able to offer assistance.

Deb, you are correct about the Catalogue of Life. It does not list cultivars. The most reliable source regarding spelling usually is the grower, although even the grower might not keep up with changes in the botanical names of plants. It's usually safe to Google the cultivar name and see whether it gets lots of hits. If the spelling is incorrect, Google usually suggests the correct version. When things get "squishy" and there seem to be alternative ways of spelling the cultivar name, we try to find the "correct" one, giving it prominence and listing the other(s) as also-sold-as names so that they will also come up in a database search on our site.

Thanks. For what it's worth, I never use Google, mainly because I think it is a ridiculous name and now fake-verb. But that's neither here nor there.

Bonehead said:Thanks. For what it's worth, I never use Google, mainly because I think it is a ridiculous name and now fake-verb. But that's neither here nor there.

And too big for their britches, IMHO. I use Bing. I think their images feature is much better also.

Yes, I love the daily image.

Yea, that too. But I meant when you click on 'Images' at the top it gives many more options than Google does. Unless I missed something.

Oh, I don't know. I never use Google so can't compare the two.