I went to post a comment and photo in our Database and looked for "Suaveolens Pink", not found under "Suaveolens", but under "Pink" and mine looks different than the one MaVieRose had.
I got mine from JT, so certain of the name.
http://plantsdatabase.com/go/53696/ Is the name just "Pink"?
Are both plants the same? A little confused here.
Thanks all!
Vi
Sure is pretty, whatever it's name is.
actually, looks like the entry may be a bit off. It should be 'Suaveolens Pink', I don't think there's one called Pink.
Terry suggested that I throw this question out to the experts, lol.
I do know that the leaves are huge. BTW, tiG, that's your Gypsy Queen in the foreground, just Y'd last week!
vi, can I get a cutting back from you of GQ?? i gave them all away.
Of Course, Dear! You mean you don't have any of your favorite, how in the world did that happen, lol, too generous, huh?
I just can't wait to see it bloom!
I thought I kept one for myself, and didn't!!! I do love it, thanks so much:)
Terry, is tiG's opinion enough or do we need more?
Cala? Ludgar? Anyone?
don't go on just my word, please
Anyone else home?
I agree with tiG. It should read Suaveolens Pink. I have one that is a deeper pink and it is labeled Suaveolens Rose. I don't believe that there is one called "Pink".
JMHO.............
I will go with what the consensus here is. From a taxonomic standpoint (hehehe, spelling that is hard enough - please don't confuse me with a taxonomist!!!) suaveolens is generally a species name, not a cultivar name. Hortus (yes, I know it's hopelessly outdated, but bear with me) lists the following species of Brugmansia:
B. arborea
B. aurea
B. x candida
B. x insignis
B. sanguinea
B. suaveolens
B. versicolor
If the plant in question IS a suaveolens, it could be presented as:
Brugmansia suaveolens f. pink (indicating that it is the pink form)
Brugmansia suaveolens 'Pink' (indicating it's a cultivated variety)
Other - less proper - names *might* include:
Brugmansia suaveolens ssp. pink (indicating it is a subspecies) or
Brugmansia suaveolens var. pink (indicating it is a variety)
As you can see, there are some fairly rigid rules around the proper nomenclature of plant names, but many of the genera that are undergoing rapid development - via discovery of new species or hybridization - are not necessarily adhering to the traditional rules, at least for the time being.
P.S. tiG - I think the B. versicolor Peach would follow the same rules as here, which is still in my list of to-do's to clean up and combine the two entries.
I know exactly what you are talking about Terry, I think most of these got their tagged 'names' before anyone realized they should probably have names. Wouldn't you think then, that it should be
Brugmansia suaveolens var. pink out of the list above. My thinking on one part of that is 'Pink' actually gives it the name pink. It is traded under the name Suaveolens Pink, or has been for the most part.
Would be interested in other viewpoints too. I might be way off track. :)
When we start discussing the fine distinctions between form vs. variety vs. cultivar, I get lost in a hurry, and I'm not sure there are any universal definitions that those "in the know" would agree on.
However, to the best of my knowledge, a form occurs naturally (white-flowered form, or variegated leaf form, for example.) A cultivar is a cultivated variety. So if this pink form (variety, subspecies???) has been separated from the population and cultivated separately, it should be given the designation of variety or cultivar.
I give, will step aside for the experienced to help you:)
Sure over my head. Enjoy trying to sort it all out though. Thanks Terry.
when i post SP on the database last year, i indicated it to be Suaveolen Pink http://davesgarden.com/t/362330/. last week i noticed it was changed to pink when violabird entered it to the PD.
here are some of the threads i had last year mentioning SP http://davesgarden.com/t/362303/ http://davesgarden.com/t/364274/ there is another thread i opened but could not find it.
MaVie, I've slept since then, so it might have been me that edited it, or one of the other editors - I have no recollection of editing it, but who knows?
This came to my attention a few days ago when Violabird sent us a note indicating it should be changed.
I can support using most any of the names I mentioned above, but I have serious reservations about it being displayed as Brugmansia 'Suaveolens Pink' as that seems an incorrect way to reference the species.
Ditto for "Versicolor Peach" which I believe is still in the PDB twice - once as Brugmansia 'Versicolor Peach' and once as Brugmansia versicolor 'Peach'
(And for those of you who are shrugging your shoulders and scratching your heads, I am sorry for the nitpicky nature of the question. But think of this as almost like a baby's birth certificate - you have one shot at getting the kid named correctly, and any subsequent changes - minor OR major - are difficult, time-consuming, messy and confusing. Especially if there's any possibility you named another one of your children the same name you meant to call this one! ;o)
Since suaveolens pink & versicolor peach aren't name hybrids.... I almost think the proper way to list them would be B.suaveolens var. pink and B. versicolor var. peach
I agree with Terry and Tig. It is difficult to explain...in Europe we say:It is a unnamed pink suavolenshybrid because here are so many different pink suavolens.You will not say anything wrong:-) it is pink and it is a suavolens.
The other side are named hybrids like Rosa Traum, Flamenco,Adora and on..
Sometimes I think it is a hunting for named Brugs.
I keep my named wildforms and hybrids for my crossings and all the other ones I just like ( like Shirley says ).
Ending for now, I will think about it all and watch this thread.
I've invited Baa to step in to this conversation, as she has a much better grasp of the vagaries of taxonomy than I do. I hope she'll see my message soon and wade right in :)
And "Insignus Pink" is diferent because?
According to the ICRA, you can't use a name like suaveolens, insignis, arborea, in the "name" of a plant. You wouldn't say Iris "Germanica Blue" would you? It would be I. germanica "Blue" or I. germanica var. blue.
violabird, that's another good example. A pink-flowering B. insignis (or according to Hortus, B. x insignis) would be written as Brugmansia x insignis var. pink (or f. pink or ssp. pink or 'Pink' in single quotes to indicate a cultivar.)
Are we having fun yet? (*grin*)
The only reason I shy away from var. or ssp. is that typically those are used in conjunction with another latinized epithet. For example,
Brugmansia x insignis var. violabirdiana (indicating the honorary namesake) or
Brugmansia x insignis ssp. davesgardenica (indicating its place of origin :)
Silly examples, but you get the picture. Non-latinized descriptive epithets such as "pink" or "white" or "blue" are typically (but not always) indicated as form. However, I'm inferring an unspoken/unwritten naming "rule" that may be nonexistent or based on a false assumption on my part.
Vi,
because insignis is: versicolor x suavolens and this one back to suavolens will give a x insignis to you.
A real x insignis is growing in my backyard( Monika gave to me) I named it: unknown pink xinsignis.
Calalily: You can name a Iris germanica like(as) "German Blue",no problem.It is Iris germanica " German Blue ".
If you will need it - I will send you more informations about the Icra.
Very would like to give you that favour.
Ludger, I have a link to ICRA site. I didn't say you couldn't name an iris "German Blue" I said you couldn't use germanica as part of it's "name" because that a species of iris isn't it? It would be Iris germanica "Blue" or Iris germanica "German Blue" but not I. "Germanica Blue".
Ok and thank you.
Oh boy, we're having fun now ): :(
Cultivar: Pink
Family: Solanaceae
Genus: Brugmansia
Species: suaveolens
Cultivar: Insignis Pink
Family: Solanaceae
Genus: Brugmansia
Please bear with me, I AM trying to understand, why is there no "Species" for Insignis Pink?
VI,
you are so right.Thank You!
I will mail later I am afraid to use a bad word.
May be one day we will find out it all together!!!
Vi, keep smiling - we'll get there! If there isn't a species name in a PDB entry, it can be for one of two reasons:
1) It was incorrectly entered. (That happens more frequently than I care to think about. But hopefully we catch most of them fairly quickly - no guarantees, though :(
2) It's a hybrid, and was written without the specific epithet. You'll find that quite frequently on most of the Hosta, Daylily and Iris entries - they're assumed to be a hybrid, which means they could be written as hybridus (or hybrida, or hybridum); or left blank. Orchids with their grexes are a whole other issue (which we'll save for the sequel, lol.)
But my guess is that the species for 'Insignis Pink' *should* be x insignis var (or f. or ssp.) pink.
I agree Terry. It has to have a botanical name. In Hortus III they have Erysimum x.allionii as a botanical name and Erythrina x. bidwillii as one and Lophomyrtus x. ralphii "Indian Chief", so shouldn't it be Brugmanisa x. insignis (plus whatever name goes here)?
I think it should be, Cala. The question then becomes whether "pink" is considered a form, a subspecies, a variety, or a cultivar.
I cannot find anything that clearly states how one decides which is the appropriate format given certain criteria.
I just surfed thru at least 15 different Brugs in our database, none had a "species" listed. As tiG had stated, the question, my question stems from the fact that it is marketed as S. Pink.
my question comes from it being listed as 'Pink' which denotes a named cultivar. There are thousands of S. pink out there, not all clones from one named plant.
Viola, none of them have species listed because they are named hybrids. Most of them are crosses between two (or more) different species. Pinning them down to a species name is nearly impossible.
On the other hand, suaveolens is a species. Same with versicolor and x insignis.
Terry, I wonder if it might be better to list these ones in question under the general B.suaveolens, versicolor and insignis entries?
tiG, AHA! So that's the answer to my question simplified (for this very simple person). It is basically just NOT a named brug (which Ludgar was trying to explain to me) I assumed it was, due to it being marketed as such.
Am I correct yet?
Ummm, pardon my ignorance, but there are UNNAMED brugs being marketed? I understand trading unnamed seedlings as a hobby grower, but if a plant is being being bought and sold, shouldn't it be named and registered ASAP to avoid confusion, let alone future trademark/copyright/patent disputes?
Yes, there are tons of un-named brugs out there. If you check out the Park's catalog, they sell "pink", "white", and "yellow". A lot of places sell unnamed brugs.
Terry, that's like trying to put the dam back together with ones like this. Parks, other online sources and many nurseries sell a generic pink that is a suaveolens. No one knows if they are seedlings, cuttings from several different ones or not. We're not talking about a cloned unnamed brug, but look-a-likes that can't be positively IDed.
