Unusual Form Flower Type

Dave,

Would it be possible to have "Unusual Form" or UF added to the Plant Files as a choice for a Daylily Flower Type?


From the AHS Dictionary:
Unusual Form:
"A class of daylilies based exclusively on form, not on color or color patterns. An Unusual Form must display Unusual Form characteristics on at least 3 petals or 3 sepals. No cultivar whose measurements meet the definition of a SPIDER, is on the official AHS Spider list, or has won the Harris Olson Spider Award is eligible.

Unusual Forms is made up of 3 types of flowers, based exclusively on their tepal (petal and sepal) shapes. These include: Crispate, Cascade and Spatulate forms.

Unusual Forms may bloom as pure examples of their kind, but very often they combine more than one feature.

Many Unusual Forms are variable, displaying different forms or combinations of forms each day they open. Unusual Forms may bloom as pure examples of their kind, but very often they combine more than one feature."

Thank you for considering.

This message was edited Apr 3, 2005 7:13 PM

What a great suggestion! I ran into this a lot when I was working on the recent PlantFiles contest, and had to leave those checkboxes open.

Do you think there would be a problem if someone generically clicked the UFO box for cultivars that are 'pure' examples of their kind, though?

Donna

I would think that anyone who went to the trouble to add a plant would know whether it was a Spider, Crispate, Cascade, Unusual Form... or a combination of a Spider and Unusual Form... if it's like most of the check boxes, we can check more than one box. Worst case, if someone did run across one that had been mislabeled, just like we do now, add a note and let the admins know. :-) They're really quick to take care of any mistakes I've ever made or found. :-)



This message was edited Apr 3, 2005 7:13 PM

Melissa, we can add another checkbox - but I would ask you to answer two questions first:

1) How frequently would someone search by this particular criteria; and
2) How much risk is there that those who don't understand the importance/significance (or qualifications necessary) for this criteria will unwittingly check it off the existing and future entries?

If most people wouldn't look for a Hem by this characteristic, then the better course of action is to use the comment field to designate it as such, and avoid the potential of having a lot of "false positives" show up in searches.

Terry, the reason I asked is because they are becoming more and more popular. There are so many out there that don't fit neatly into a specific category, always. I don't think that there would be much problem with people marking the wrong box, any more so than they mark Crispate or Spatulate when it should be Spider they're marking. :-)

If someone is looking for an unusual form, it would be nice to have that option in searching as well.

I don't know when the AHS came up with this classification, but, it's the only AHS classification for flower type (as far as I can tell) that we're not using in the Plantfiles ... another reason I asked for it. :-)

Well I have to agree I would love to have a field for UF also while we are at it could we have a field for the pattern that just says other for all the ones that just have a throat, washed, midrib etc.? I hate leaving that field blank when there is really nothing to mark.

Good Point Peggy. That way it's obvious that it doesn't quite "fit" into a category, not that it was ignored. :-)

I asked in daylilies how many folks would use this option if it were available Terry, maybe that will give you an idea if it is something that would be used or not. http://davesgarden.com/forums/t/501450/


I'd also love to have a line for parentage of the DL....
**ducking before she throws something at me**


My personal wish... I'd love for the database here to be the most comprehensive DB of daylilies anywhere on the web
* Because I believe it is a useful tool
* It is the easiest search tool on the web that I've found.
*it is unique in that anyone can submit the photos, plants, etc.
*I love the fact that I can look at a daylily, and see what it looks like growing in California, Belgium or Ohio, and I think that is something that others probably find useful as well.
*I like that when I search a plant, I don't just see ONE single photo, I can see several different photos...

I'll stop, I sound like a commercial, and I know I'm preaching to the choir here.

I think if the parentage was added, along with the UF entry, it might attract more users......especially since the person who created the database with every daylily known to man passed away and the CD is no longer be available for purchase as far as I know.

Well, you know what I'm going to say, don't you? (smile)

If not, here goes (pullling myself onto my handy-dandy traveling soapbox that follows me everywhere)....

Adding a checkbox is easy. I can make it happen in a flash.

Going back and retroactively adding the information to existing entries is a lot more time-consuming, especially for those entries that already have other checkboxes checked off in that section. Our PF editor staff is stretched pretty thin currently, so if I blithely encourage a new slew of error reports, I might be sending poor Mystic round the bend and over the brink.

Adding a field for parentage (grex) is even murkier - Dave would have to do the programming, and considering it would be genus (or family) - specific, it would only appear AFTER the entry is created, and it subsequently opened up to be edited. Only the person who created the entry (or a PlantFiles editor) can edit the name fields to edit them. Which brings us back to the problem of how to retroactively add this information without swamping the already overworked PF editors?

We have shied away from adding a field for parentage for other plants (such as roses and orchids) because it can be somewhat contentious, and it's not necessarily a piece of information that people will use to search for plants.

But it is interesting reading, which makes it suitable for a comment, and it would be easy for me to say add it as a comment. But I also know that for some entries, this information would be buried way down a list of other comments, rather than the first one, where it is most likely to be read.

Bottom line: adding another text field is a question for Dave, but I have some strong reservations about it.

The nice thing about adding an UF checkbox is that the ones that are already marked crispate or spider, etc, do not have to be changed. Generally they are listed as one of those things anyway, but in addition they are marked Unusual Form. I'll check off when I come to one, or alert mystic.... but, it definitely would be nice to have since there are so many.

I like "our" plant files.... I think it's the easiest one to navigate on the web.... since daylilies are my favorite, I'd just like to have every bit of information I can, right here without having to use another database. If everything is here... more and more people (hopefully) will start using this database.

If we had the parentage information Terry, it is very likely that it would be used, and probably used often. If I have Autumn Red sitting here just waiting to be dabbed with Pollen, it would be nice to see some of the babies it has produced.

I'll do a rendition in photoshop of what I'd like to see.... just to see how it "rolls off the eyes" LOL ;-)

Sorry, I guess I didn't make my point very clear. Let's say we add UF to the list of possible forms. If a plant already has any other form checked off, then it requires an editor to check off the UF box, even if the another box remains checked off, too.

I understand and appreciate what you're saying about parentage, but please trust me when I say adding another field is a very messy proposition. The Orchid folks are ahead of you in the request line, and their issue is more pressing, because of the inaccurate presentation of grexes using the current cultivar field.

Even if Dave is amenable to adding another text field, keep in mind we have 20,000-some daylily entries already. Unless there is a team of volunteers who have the plant and technical knowledge and the inclination to go through each entry and correct it with this information, it's likely to become a hit-or-miss (and therefore unreliable) piece of information when someone searches for it. There is a group of people who volunteered to help clean up the existing Lilium entries (of which we have far fewer), and they haven't been able to make much headway, despite their good intentions.

As I was looking at the fields, I realized that an editor would have to do it, unless you did something like this: http://www.melissasgarden.us/ufform.jpg

Would that be feasible? If not, then I"d be tickled to death just to have it in the field that already exists... I've been adding it to the notes, and will continue to do so, so that the editors could check it off whenever they had time... (sorry Mystic) :-) http://www.melissasgarden.us/formfields.jpg


I have excel sheets with just about every parent.... is there any way to "feed" that information in using an excel sheet? I'd volunteer to help.... lol, but you probably knew I would anyway. ;-)

This is what I was thinking, but again, I'm not the one writing the code, so I have no idea how involved it is, and I'm sorry if I'm asking for the impossible.
http://www.melissasgarden.us/parentage.jpg

It's possible (strapping on my flame-proof gear and industrial-strength shin guards in case Dave's reading this) that a spreadsheet of data could be overlaid onto this field, and that would be the fastest way to get the UF checkbox checked for existing entries.

The criteria would be that the cultivar names would have to match exactly what is in Plantfiles, and I can give you the numerical translation for each checkbox in that section. If you're handy with spreadsheets, it's pretty easy to have it look for all occurrences of [word] and replace with [number(s)], separated by a comma if there are two or more checkboxes to be checked.

I don't have the UF on the spreadsheets, but, I would be willing to make one if that would make it easier. There aren't "that" many UF's out there.... but it would still take a little time to pull them together.

I have the pod/pollen crosses on spreadsheets... not for every single hem ever--but several thousand of them.

Ahhhmm Clearing my throat as I enter the room . I would like to say there are still 1000's of entries in the hems that need details filled in, anybody can do those without editors having to do a thing. The Into by and year still needs added to 1000's as well. I have been working on that as fast as I can.
I do think a UF box needs to be added under the flower type. They are becoming more popular all the time and I know I for one would do a search for UF. I have when I looked at sites to buy them. It could be marked on the on going ones and if Melissa or someone is willing to compile a list of all the Uf on a spreadsheet like Terry is saying and it can be overlaid onto this field, that way it would be wonderful. I sure don't want 100's of error reports on them. This is my real garden time so my time is limited.
As for the parentage I think its useful information but I don't feel it needs a special field for it. I think the comments section is fine for that but I am wondering if there is a way to make a comment a sticky where if somebody wanted to take the time to add a comment with all the useful information, like parentage, special characteristics etc. That comment could be brought to the top and stay there. Just a thought!

I appreciate the fact that Terry acknowledges that the orchid folks are at the front of the line for getting a grex name included in the PF descriptions. Not to slight the daylily and rose people, where parentage would indeed be a useful tool, for orchids, a grex name is THE COMMON NAME most hybrid orchids are known by. Other additional cultivar info would be an OK place for parentage info on roses and daylily as the info would not be used for , say, a plant search. In the case of orchids, for example, if I wanted to look up Sophrolaeliocattleya Jewel Box 'Dark Waters', a rather common orchid hybrid, I would never find it as the orchid entries now exist. People are putting the name Jewel Box ( which is the GREX name) in the cultivar line when really, 'Dark Waters' is the cultivar name. To get around this, orchid people are entering the name Jewel Box under the species name! I think you can appreciate the mess of the orchid entries! So again, at the risk of alienating myself from the daylily-rose people, the 'orchid folks' case is far more pressing.

Oh, no, I totally understand and appreciate that, and in no way was suggesting that "we" should come first. I didn't even know about your dilemma. :-)

Perhaps when all the bugs are worked out for the Orchid folks, it will be simple to add it for everyone else?

Just to add a few comments to this discussion (only because I was catching up on reading last night). The Spring 2005 issue of The Daylily Journal, an official AHS journal provides an update from the Oct. 2004 Board of Directors meeting. The officially changed the wording in the classification of an "Unusual Form" daylily and the UNF definition states that "no cultivar qualifies whose measurements meet the definition of a spider, or which has won the Harris Olson Spider Award." Thus, a change to the PF to add UNF would (IMHO) require that the Spider designation be removed if it is there incorrectly in the PF. Arguably if a daylily is corrected entered from AHS registration data in the first place nothing registered as a Spider would also be classified as a UNF.

Additionally the Spring Journal goes on to say that they are now adding the "Extra Large Flower" category to judging ballots this year. This is defined as flowers that are 7" or more in diameter. It states there are currently about 3500 Extra Large daylilies registered. To me it would be wise that the PF make changes as they are made by the governing organization (AHS in this case). The longer we wait and debate the decision to or not to..... the more cultivars that there will be to retroactively correct. Furthermore, the sooner we make changes such as UNF and Extra Large Flower the more accurate the PF is as a datasource for the world.

Does anyone know when the Unusual Form was approved for registrations for Hems or how many to date have been registered as such?

Just my 2¢......

Ya know, when I'm marking checkboxes in the PF I often wish for an "Extra Large" flower size. Oh! But how I shudder to think of how many will need changing when it's added! LOL! Still, it's needed.

Mystic makes a good point - there are thousands more that need to be checked at all than will need to be changed.

Cheri'