Which is correct ...

I have noticed that on a lot of series, the nursery who hybridized them, adds the series name before the cultivar name, thus making it part of the cultivar's name. Like Echinacea Big Sky Sunrise. Or the Bambino series in bougainvillea.

My question is, am I to put the series name with the cultivar name as the hybridzers do? Or just the cultivar name and then put the series name below in additional info only? I see it done both ways in PlantFiles.

Thanks

I'd love to know what the correct way is too--I've got several things along these lines that I haven't added because I wasn't sure how to handle it although I think I entered a few too before I realized that some of these things weren't really cultivar names.

And there are some even more confusing ones where the grower tries on purpose not to even use the cultivar name at all, for example Chilopsis linearis 'Monhews' is listed in Plant Files as C. linearis 'Timeless Beauty' with 'Monhews' listed in the additional info. But Timeless Beauty is a trademark not a cultivar name, it's marketed as Timeless Beauty TM Desert Willow, and the correct Latin name of the plant is Chilopsis linearis 'Monhews'. Or one of my new acquisitions for this year is in Plant Files as Acer palmatum 'Shirazz', but Shirazz is a marketing name not the cultivar name--the cultivar name is 'Gwen's Rose Delight' and that's not even listed at all in PF.

My take on this is to put it in PlantFiles both ways. Put just the cultivar name in the cultivar field and put it the way the hybridizer or vendors have it listed in the additional info field, in parentheses. Also, if it's an additional name, like what Ecrane pointed out, put aka in front.

Cultivar field: Monhews
Additional field (aka Timeless Beauty™ Desert Willow)

Or if the information isn't an additional name, but other information about the cultivar:
(Timeless Beauty™ Series)

I think it's important to have all additional names listed so they come up in a search. If they don't come up in a search, then users don't find the plant they are looking for and this leads to duplicate entries being created.

Now to find those incorrect entries you both were talking about...

I did some tweaking. Do they look okay now?

Monhews http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/108922/

Gwen's Rose Delight http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/171749/

The entry for Echinaceae 'Sunrise' http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/73556/ I didn't do anything to this one as it looks okay to me.

The Chilopsis and the JM look right--thanks Joan! Now that I know how these are supposed to be, I'll try to keep my eye out and report errors when I run across others that have been put in wrong!

Thanks!

Thanks Joan for answering me. I guess I am still confused. Isn't the Timeless Beauty name the same to the cultivar Monhews as the name Shirazz is to the cultivar Gwen's Rose Delight?
Both are patented names for a particular hybrid. So why do you put Timeless beauty name in the common name space but not in the AKA space but with Shirazz you put that name in the AKA space but not in the common area space?

As now listed in PF:

PlantFiles: Timeless Beauty Desert Willow, Desert Catalpa, Flowering Willow, Orchid of the Desert
Chilopsis linearis 'Monhews'
...
Cultivar: Monhews
Additional cultivar information: (PP11078)

________________________________________________

PlantFiles: Japanese Maple
Acer palmatum 'Gwen's Rose Delight'
...
Cultivar: Monhews
Additional cultivar information: (PP11078)


I know I am just missing something here, sorry for being dense. I just am trying to figure out how to enter similar ones in the future.
Thanks!

I think different growers handle things differently. If you look at Monrovia's website (they're the ones who own the patent on the Chilopsis) they list it as Timeless Beauty Desert Willow, then underneath they list the Latin name Chilopsis linearis 'Monhews' http://www.monrovia.com/learn/plant_catalog/detail.php?item_number=2415 Whereas for Shirazz, Novalis lists it as Acer palmatum Shirazz TM 'Gwen's Rose Delight' http://www.plantsthatwork.com/PlantsThatWork/PlantDetails.aspx?PlantID=100909&PlantGroup=Exclusives&PlantGroupID= Most of the time I think the names are like Shirazz or your Big Sky coneflower where the trademark name is listed with the cultivar name rather than as a common name like the Chilopsis, so if in doubt I'd probably do it like Shirazz and Big Sky Sunrise.

I struggled with the Timeless Beauty reference to this plant. The plant patent doesn't say anything about Timeless Beauty, and it's most often used as part of the common name, rather than part of the cultivar name. And it's listed as Timeless Beauty Desert Willow. I couldn't find any reference to it being used as a cultivar name. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Chilopsis+linearis+%27Monhews%27&btnG=Google+Search

With the Japanese Maple, 'Gwen's Rose Delight' is the name on the patent. Shirazz is an additional trademarked cultivar name, (I think it was given to the plant by Novalis, but I'm not sure about that) http://www.plantsthatwork.com/PlantsThatWork/PlantDetails.aspx?PlantID=100909&PlantGroup=AllPlants&PlantGroupID= and this trademarked cultivar name is separate from the patent name. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Acer+%27Gwen%27s+Rose+Delight%27&btnG=Google+Search

Quite frequently a plant is given a different cultivar name on the market than what is listed on the patent. Why, I don't know, except that some of the names on the patents are strange, like this one. http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/76788/ This poor plant was given the name 'CGB Cone 3' on it's patent. When it went to market it was given a much lovelier name of 'Mango Meadowbrite', which is trademarked.

Does this make sense?

I think the reason the growers do things like that is because patents expire eventually and then anyone can sell the plant with that particular cultivar name, but they won't be able to use the trademark name. So if they make the cultivar name stupid or hard to remember but have a nice fun trademark name, consumers will remember the trademark name and won't recognize the plant when it's eventually sold under other names. I think they also use this trick on plants that aren't patented--there nobody has exclusive rights to the particular cultivar, but only that one particular company can use the trademarked name, so again they're hoping that consumers will remember the trademarked name and only buy the plant from them rather than other growers. Personally I don't like that they do things this way since it makes things too confusing, but from a marketing standpoint it works very well--with plants like Shirazz, Black Beauty and Black Lace elderberries, and many others I think everyone knows the trademarked name, but most people would be hard pressed to tell you the real cultivar name.

Thanks. I will have to reread what you both wrote later tonight since I need to do some research on my own to digest it all. But you both are so nice to take the time.

I am actually now deep into how to enter an inter-generic hybrid. I had asked months ago but when the answer was posted I was already onto something else so now I must go back and find the answer. I actually think it is still on my updated threads list. I never looked at it. LOL. I just ran across the pics again and really want to get them entered this time. I am researching again how the hybrid came about. Everything takes so much time!

Is it the X Chiranthofremontia lenzii? I remember that there was a discussion of that one in this forum somewhere although I don't remember the details. But based on what I know about intergeneric hybrids, you'd list the genus as X Chiranthofremontia and species lenzii. Here's an example of another intergeneric hybrid so you can see how it looks in PF: http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/162987/ The way intergeneric hybrids are named is to take a piece of each of the genera that are the parents and smush them together and put an X in front of the name. So Chiranthodendon x Fremontodendron became X Chiranthofremontia, Pyracantha x Heteromeles became X Pyracomeles, Chilopsis x Catalpa became X Chitalpa, etc. The trouble with X Chiranthofremontia is that there's another name that you'll find it under too (X Leelenzia ranchorum) which is not correct, but you'll find it listed that way anyway in some places so it should probably be put in as a synonym (I picked one up at the UC Santa Cruz arboretum plant sale and it was labeled X Leelenzia, so even some reputable places that ought to know better will label things wrong sometimes).

Discussion on intergeneric hybrids http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/760702/#new

You are so funny, Liz. Such a busy bee. Yes it is X Chiranthofremontia lenzii which I asked to be added earlier today. Was it already added before? I looked almost exactly 1 year ago and it was not added then I couldn't find it again today. A year passes so fast. LOL

From my reading I have that ×Leelenzia ranchorum is from another cross using Fremontodendron 'California Glory.' I only have done about 1 hour of research on X Chiranthofremontia lenzii so maybe I will find contradicting info later. I need to water now and then get ready for sushi sushi so it will be a bit before I get back to it. THANK YOU for all your help Liz!

Thanks Joan. I found my thread last year where Terry had explained it to me. I iwll read your thread later.

Well of course I am still looking. LOL! I am still confused if in fact ×Leelenzia ranchorum is a synonym so I will leave it blank for now. I have a couple of places that say yes it is but yet they are supposed to have used different Fremontodendrons in their crosses.

I didn't do a search for ×Leelenzia ranchorum yet on PF so I hope it is not already listed under that on PF.

Anyway, Tom just go thome so I am done for now!

It's not in there either (or wasn't a couple months ago) I looked for both names when I bought the plant from UCSC so that I could add it to my journal. I had done some searching and found info (although of course I didn't bookmark it and probably couldn't find it again!) that said X Leelenzia was an incorrect name. I tend to believe that it's not right because it doesn't follow the standard naming convention for intergeneric hybrids (what I mentioned above about taking parts of each genus name and smushing them together). I have a feeling whoever made the hybrid probably didn't know about that naming convention and gave it a different name, then the powers that be in the plant naming world renamed it properly. Or a second group maybe came along and did a different cross and named it properly and the 1st group never ended up with a legitimate name for theirs.