A plant that's inside all of the time vs. the same one that goes outside seasonally can look very different. Not as distinct with Ags as with something like Coleus, but still a factor I've seen on my own plants, fading/brightening.
Even though I've been into plants for decades, it's not always obvious if the names given to plants are cultivar names or fru-fru common names, like the ones EA gives to any plant that doesn't already have a cultivar name. One indicates a legitimate process by which a professional earns a living, the other is someone's whim. A lot of the problem is the lack of proper labels on plants. There's a correct way to write a botanical cultivar epithet, but when professional growers aren't using it, the whole system breaks down. Not knowing what you are growing is one thing, but being unable to correctly indicate names of known plants in simply a mistake, and bad example being perpetuated much more quickly/abundantly than correct labels. On EA website, all species start with a capital letter, and the section where one looks for plants by *genus* says it's sorted by *species* and includes a bunch of common names that aren't a genus or species.
Sometimes I retain a cultivar name if a plant comes with one, but would never attempt to attach one to a plant otherwise unless there's no doubt possible. (Like a variegated vs. plain leaf version, or alternative bloom color.) As a database issue, I think it's more helpful for people trying to ID plants if the plain species/parent plant has tons of pics. ID'ing to the cultivar level is, agreed, never necessary info for cultivating.
It will be interesting to see, now that Costa Farms has bought EA, if the labels will go generic ("succulent,") or just continue to be more specific, but not necessarily correct ("Tradescantia zebrina 'Red Hill'" that's sometimes Cyanotis somaliensis, sometimes Tradescantia blossfeldiana/cerinthoides - and "Coffea arabica" that's really Ardisia crenata.)
