In case this message looks familiar, it probably does. Over on the daylily forum, PoppySue suggested I post this message here, too. As we make changes to the Plants Database, one issue has come up: some plants (like hostas, daylilies, roses, brugs, tomatoes, cacti, etc.) have TONS of cultivars and varieties, and very few genus/species.
This creates some problems (as you probably already know) in the database - do you list thousands of cultivars in one entry? Or should we have thousands of brug entries, even though they are the same genus/species?
And when you're looking for a brug with particular characteristics, can you use the existing fields to help you refine your search? (Currently you can search for plants by category, height, hardiness, bloom time, etc.)
I could really use some help to make the database better for brugs.
1. I need your input - open up a new entry in the database (click on "add a new plant") and take a critical look at those fields. Which ones work well for entering a hosta, and which ones are awkward? Post your ideas here or email me.
2. As I mentioned above, if you want to search for a brug with certain characteristics, what are those? (We can possibly add fields just for brug entries that you'd be able to search on - but we need to know what would help you the most.)
3. Most important - can I get a couple of you to volunteer to help look over the brug section of the database when we upgrade? You get a sneak preview of the new database, and I could really use the second (and third) set of eyes looking over the fields, and doing a bit of testing. No major time commitment - probably a few hours or less during the next month. If you're interested, don't be shy - volunteer yourself! Let me know by email or by posting back here.
Thanks in advance :)
Terry
Brugs in the database - need your help
The genus Brugmansia has many cultivars and only few known natural species or hybrids. The heritage of many cultivars are known. Shape and Form of the flower, together with the foilage should not make it to difficult to place them in the right category.
I would be pleased to help.
Monika - So you think the hybrids should be sorted out and listed under the appropriate species? And not bother listing each hybrid with their own entry? That was my initial thught ... but then I was thinking sice there are so many brugmansia lovers here @ Dave's it would be nice to list each hybrid. We could go into better detail about the hybrids and enter - the parents (when known), color, flower form, height, ease of propagation, foliage form - and so on. I'm so glad to see someone with brug knowlege want to help. I've entered a couple of the species in there but I really don't have any experience and I'm just going by what the books say.
Each hybrid can be listed. But they should be placed in their own categories: B. suaveolens and their hybrids, B. aurea x suaveolens group, B. aurea and B. aurea Hybrids, B. versicolor and their hybrids, B. x candida, B. x insignis.
Multihybrids either alone or added to the group as for instance L'Amour with almost trumpet shaped flowers. L'Amour, Rosalie or Rosabelle are considered by many people as being aurea Hybrids, but their are not. L'Amour has quite a bit of B. suaveolens genes.
Here are the two ideas I'm tossing around for the database, and Dave has the final say since he has to program it :)
1. For plants like brugs, roses, etc. give each variety or cultivar its own entry, and the cultivar/variety name could go in its own field, instead of the species; or
2. Within each species' entry, list the cultivars/varieties, each in its own text box. This would also entail having standard characteristic info you could check/select for each cultivar - kind of like having an entry within an entry.
The more I think about it, the more I'm liking option #1 because I think it's "cleaner" in the long run. (An entry for one of these plants could get mighty cumbersome with hundreds of cultivars listed.)
Okay...what would one consider an aurea x suaveolens x versicolor x (versicolor) hybrid to be...Rosabelle and Butterfly are the same cross right? Rothkirch x Ocre and Ocre is Candida or aurea x versicolor type?...that would make Rosabelle and Butterfly both aurea x (aurea x versicolor)....? Predominatly aurea...? As always confused....What is L'amour's parentage? As you can tell I am trying to memorize all of this information and not doing the best job in the world.
That sounds wonderful but I think it might be a little to complicated. That is one of the pitfalls with a database that all the members can contribute to. If it were set up like that I think we may end up with a lot of inaccurate entries or no entries at all like we have now. Not very many of us seem to know just what species the brug hybrids fall under.
Do you think a check list of the species might work? Then when in doubt it could be left blank and perhaps someone else that knows could fill it in. I think that way we would be able to bring up all the species & it's hybrids on one list.
I'm thinking something like this
Brugmansia
Hybrid Name -
Check the species this hybrid falls under (just an example)
o aborea
o aurea
o insignis
o sanguinea
o suaveolens
o versicolor
o vulcanicola
o x candida
o x flava
o multihybrid
And maybe a text box for any additional parentage information? & Hybridizer when known
We kinda need a feel for what other information is needed too - Here's some I know we need
Color
Fragrance
Hieght
Flower size
Flower shape (?)
Foliage
Thanks for your input Monika & Eric - it's a big help. If we can get this together so it's easy enough to add a plant to I think it will be awesome. It would be nice to know you can go to the database and find pictures & information about a certain brug hybrid.
I mailed my cataloge to Dave for a look. When pictures are added, the explanations like more trumpet than a funnel shaped or vice versa makes sense. aurea hybrids can be named as such only, when both parents were true species. A candida x aurea - Hybrid is not a aurea hybrid, even when it looks like it. A aurea x suaveolens - Hybrid cannot be called a aurea - Hybrid even when it looks like it. I have a hybrid, Rosa Fanfare which resembles almost a true suaveolens but the parents were B. suaveolens x B. aurea.
Such a hybrid is deplaced ub the B. suaveolens group.
These are botanical rules. Another example: Amarillo Paja is listed as a B. versicolor. The shape of the flower looks more like that of a x candida but its a Multihybrid. B. suaveolens Goldtraum is the mother, therefore Amarillo Paja can never be a B. versicolor.
Maybe the simplest solution would be to omit the species of the crosses and have someone that actually knows be the one to enter that information. We'd only have the hybrid names but I'd rather see less information than wrong information myself. It's all very confusing. I wonder if there would be a way to give Monika a her own edit feature to add parentage info on the entries?? (That is if she'd be willing to do it). So anyone could make the entry ... say for "L'Amour", add the basic info, enter pictures of the blooms & seed pods... and then Monika could add the species &/or parentage of it??
Monika,
So if I am understanding correctly...(butterfly x aurea yellow x aurea white x( aurea Rothkirch)) on into eternity...these hybrids could never be considered aurea or even an aurea hybrid? This is all very confusing. I say let the botanists have their rules, but as for me...anything that looks pure aurea is at the least an aurea hybrid. With wild crosses or wild specimens it becomes even harder to determine as no one is there to tell you that back 100 generations or so a versicolor grain of pollen floated into that cross by bee or by moth.
These hybrids can be considered as being aureas when: the yellow and white have been true aureas. As a breeder you have to relay on this information. Under the name B. aurea Goldenes Kornett are not related aurea Hybrids in Germany available, some of them have B. suaveolens genes. You will find out when they are used for breeding purposes since the suaveolens genes are dominant. In some crosses, you dont want suaveolens influence, especially not in a mother plant used to achive doubles. I agree with you that it doesnt matter if somebody wants only a beautiful heavy blooming plant. But the identification should be made correct. The question for correct identification and parents will come up - sooner or later. B. aurea x B. versicolor can bring doubles, but is must not; you pollinate a B. aurea with Amarillo Paja, named a versicolor hybrid, hoping to get a double. See my post farther up; it will not work as Amarillo Paja is not a true versicolor nor a versicolor hybrid.
Yes, and I realize this must be very frustrating to you Monika, but at what point is a hybrid able to be considered an aurea again if it is continually breed back to an aurea? when it no longer shows any signs of any other hybrids in its progeny or seedlings would this not indicate it was an aurea if it could only breed aurea's and aurea traits were the only thing that one could procure from hybridizing with this said hybrid even if in the most distant past it had suaveolens genes added to it?
Backcrosses are allowed and necessary when a species got lost.Nobody will tell you what to do or not to do. You can obtain through inbreeding a similar plant as the original but its is not allowed to use the botanical name, Rothkirch for instance, even if your hybrid looks like it.
It should not be so hard to find the solution for the Database. I would also vote for vol opt. #1