Missouri Botanical Garden states that Syringa reticulata is the Chinese Tree Lilac, while S. reticulata ssp. reticulata is the Japanese Tree Lilac. In the NGA Plants Database, Syringa reticulata is given the common name of Japanese Lilac, which is a conflict.
http://www.missouribotanicalga...

GRIN calls S. reticulata simply Tree Lilac, but like the Missouri Botanical Gardens, they also call S. reticulata ssp. reticulata Japanese Tree Lilac.

Charles Sargent's S. japonica = S. reticulata ssp. reticulata.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure I've ever even seen a lilac of any kind...?
Virginia

Thank you for your proposals adding Chinese Tree Lilac to S. reticulata and Japanese Tree Lilac to S. reticulata subsp. reticulata. I've removed Japanese Tree Lilac from the list of S. reticulata's common names.

Who would have thought a common name could be 'wrong'... But, carry on.

Who would think that a plant that's apparently so RARE would need a COMMON name? Oh, but I guess it's us who are the commoners...?
Virginia

LOL, I noticed a few S. reticulata subspecies with the common name of "Pekin Lilac" and I thought it was a misspelling of Peking. One variety is spelled "Peking" while the others are "Pekin": https://garden.org/plants/sear... but it's apparently spelled both ways.

People sometimes stick the exact same common name on plants that come from entirely different parts of the world; plants that have totally different care and culture requirements. Common names may not be "wrong" but they can be extremely confusing, especially for those new to gardening.

I removed the G in that one peking as it's wrong.

scvirginia said:Missouri Botanical Garden states that Syringa reticulata is the Chinese Tree Lilac, while S. reticulata ssp. reticulata is the Japanese Tree Lilac. In the NGA Plants Database, Syringa reticulata is given the common name of Japanese Lilac, which is a conflict.
http://www.missouribotanicalga...

Yet the top of that same Mobot page gives Japanese tree lilac as the common name for Syringa reticulata. Most articles I've seen do the same.

I'm confused why we are spending any time debating common names. My experience is these change often, usually regionally. A common name has no particular validity in my mind, we should just stick with being sure the latin name is correct. I do often give a thumb to a common name, particularly when the 'chosen' one is not how I think of a plant. At the same time, I am curious at how others refer to the plant. Why not simply include all variations of a common name?

Ordinarily I'd agree, Deb, but Japanese tree lilac is pretty universal as the common name for Syringa reticulata and not just in North America, see the RHS UK page for it.

https://www.rhs.org.uk/Plants/...

But now only the cultivar 'Ivory Silk', the subspecies and some other cultivars come up on a search for Japanese tree lilac in the NGA database.

I've added it back to the species entry.

So if I understand correctly, all the S. reticulata should (or could) have a common name of Japanese tree lilac? Wouldn't that work for search purposes? And for those who think of any of them as a Chinese tree lilac, let that stand?

Sticking with lilacs, the 'preferred' common name for S. vulgaris was 'Common Lilac.' I've never thought of it as such. It also lists 'French lilac' as a common name, which also does not resonate with me. My impression of French lilacs are the much shorter, not so blowsy, cultivated lilacs. I'd never heard the term 'common lilac.' I thumbed simply 'lilac' for a common name which moved that up to 'preferred' and to me are the regular white and light purple lilacs growing in grandma's yard. Anyone could just as easily thumb either 'common lilac' or 'French lilac' to change that yet again. No harm, no foul.

I just don't think we should negate anyone's common name. It's like saying a person is wrong for saying 'pahTAHto' rather than 'pahTAYto.'

Cross posted with Zuzu. Thanks. (Not even my battle, but still...)