I think one lesson I've learned in my many years of managing a database is that you need a certain level of flexibility, especially when trying to make a database of all plants in cultivation. No database can be one-size-fits-all.
Zuzu makes a perfect case in point here. And in cases like this, this is one reason why we have such strength in our various moderators. Those who are really passionate about a particular plant take on a moderator role over that plant and then their knowledge and experience is poured into that plant in the database and we get the most accurate and up-to-date info possible for that plant type.
But there are indeed times when it may indeed be appropriate to have a trade name field, especially this 'Phasion' variety of Canna (which I also have in my garden!)
This is really interesting to me. The further we get in our discussions, the more I realize how much the database needs to have additional fields and structure in order to accommodate the various cases out there, and this is something I am certainly willing and even keen to do. The DB we launched some time ago is already miniscule compared to what we have today, and I predict that the DB of January 2012 will be much bigger and more expansive than what we have today.
We definitely need a field opportunity (similar to "Cultivar names") in which we can put "Trade names", and then those trade names are displayed along with the plant name using the proper convention.
I also think we're going to need a "Cultivar Group", as that is quite useful information, more useful than the latin family name, in my opinion.
I'm going to soon have a pretty big interruption that'll last several days (the rest of the week, actually), so I'd like to put these off until next week. Of course, please don't let that stop the discussion, but just be aware that my participation will be slightly limited starting late tomorrow.
