Count me in Dave.
zuzu said:I realize that this part of my response may have sounded confusing or even facetious. I was trying to explain the naming standards we use in our database. If a cultivar is the result of a cross between two species, we don't list the species, so the entries for the cultivars presently listed with A. andraeanum in their names would have to be edited to remove the species name.
If A. x cultorum describes several undefined species in it's parentage, which seems likely, then I don't see a place for it in the database either. I believe A. x ferrierense should be treated differently. My understanding is that taxonomic databases like the Kew World Checklist, the database referenced by the COL and The Plant List for Araceae, often don't fully address hybrids of horticultural origin. They do address wild species crosses. A. x ferrierense is listed by both Croat on the IAS site and by CATE Araceae, meaning the name is validly published for that cross. I treat all species crosses noted as unplaced +/or of horticultural origin similarly e.g., they need back-up, hopefully by an ICRA.
I've removed A. scandens 'Purple' from the database altogether since I haven't found any references to it.
zuzu said:In the method I described, the entry for A. andraeanum would stay put. The photos would be moved from that page to the main page for the genus. Then all we'd have to do is hope that we can get some "real" photos of A. andraeanum someday.
This is a pretty good system Dave. For instance if you look at any genus only entry you'll often see numerous photos, some of which have a known ID and some of which don't. Unidentified varieties of a known species are often placed in the species entry as well.
