African Violet criteria for Plant Files

I was looking at PF this afternoon, and it occurred to me that we could use some additional criteria for the AV descriptions. There's already a field for entering the name of the hybridizer and the date of registration. The most obvious thing missing was size classification (standard, semi-mini, miniature), but it might also be useful to be able to search for information on color, foliage, etc.

I thought before we all started really trying to beef up the AV section, we'd better figure out what else should be there.

I wrote to Terry, who said that we could add checkboxes for standard AVSA information. She suggested perhaps an application form for registering a name might be useful for the purpose of figuring out just what terms to add. Anyone have one of those handy?

What would you like to see added to PlantFiles AV pages?

I don't really want to try to upload all the information for all the varieties in First Class, but I'd be willing to enter some info for the varieties I have, along with whatever photos I have.

Do you think we need checkboxes for all possible blossom and foliage forms/colors? Or just a few? Or should we leave that sort of description as something that can be added as a "note" to the entry?

Let's do some brainstorming! Just remember that there will be a limit at some point to the number of checkboxes / criteria that can be added before the page becomes less helpful rather than more.

Oooooh! that picture! those glossy leaves, and that purple and white blossom! gasp!

Lovely photo Critter :) I like the idea about plantfiles also :)

I'm sorry for being so dense, but I don't quite understand the question. Sorry! The plant is beautiful

Thanks! That's 'Smitten Kitten', and yes, I have leaves down!

I'm sorry I was confusing.... It was too late at night when I was trying to gather my thoughts on this! LOL If you go to PlantFiles and check out various entries (for AVs and others), you'll notice that some types of plants have all sorts of other info available at the top of their page. For example, check out this page for Jalopeno pepper, http://davesgarden.com/pf/go/2200/index.html When this plant was added to the PF database, there were a bunch of checklists under each heading with categories for height, heat, etc... the person entering the data checked off the appropriate items, and then they were added to the page.

I think the AV pages should have some similar additional data fields, but we need to figure out what they should be so Terry can add them (she's willing). It's better to have checkboxes with standard terms/categories to use when adding a variety to the database than to add descriptions in your own words, as it keeps the entries more consistant.

LMK your thoughts!

Woohoo..good thing critter...your little kitten is going to be popular!

I have found it frustrating to have to just check a box for colors on any type of plant. It would be good to have that be something that could be typed in by hand.

What about a text block to paste into it, the info such as;

Opimara EverGrace: (R. Holtkamp) Single white sticktite frilled pansy/variable medium blue eye, band; light green edge. Medium green, heart-shaped, glossy, hairy, wavy, scalloped. Large

I am going by what Terry tells me, which is that the checkboxes work better for PF than typing a description into a text block. I will show her some examples of the descriptions that are in First Class, but I don't think she will be changing her mind on this. I think when you use a description like the one above, especially with no control over what terms people might use, it becomes very difficult to search PF by criteria.

Since colors are so subjective, I thought we would do better to just come up with a few categories for color, maybe like the ones used for searching on the Optimara site. More exact descriptions could be added to the file as a note, and images can also be added.

yea, true enough, but perhaps you could at least have check boxes for leaf type, bloom type, plant type etc.

using something like this site for examples http://www.avsa.org/LeafTypes.htm
and http://www.avsc.ca/photo_gallery.htm

what do ya think

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just buy First class for DG's members and have it incorporated to the plant files or the Av forum???
Guess I'm dreaming..lol

MsC







This message was edited Jan 19, 2006 11:49 PM

yes, and I'd pay a premium to access the info. Perhaps it is a possibility.

Neat idea! But... The FC site didn't say anything about liscensing agreements for websites... I'm guessing that if that sort of thing were a possibility, AVSA would have paid so that AVSA members could access FC from the AVSA website.

I like the idea of using checkboxes for more than just size classification and color category, as I think it would be good to have other information about blooms etc readily accessible. However, I'm a little leery about adding 31 checkboxes just to describe leaves (that's a great site, though!), as I think it could be both intimidating & confusing to have quite so many options.

Which descriptors do you think are most important for describing leaves? What do you want to be able to search for? For myself, I would like foliage descriptions to include checkboxes for unusual characteristics such as: variegated, red backed, girl, longifolia, clacamus, and ruffled/bustled....

Similarly, what blossom characteristics (other than colored) do we want to be able to do a search for? Some possibilities would be: pansy, semi-double, fully double, wasp, ruffled/fringed, color edge... Please think in terms of description categories that could be combined.... for example, if you're looking for AVs with "fancy" edges on their blooms, it might be all right to combine ruffled & fringed into one checkbox and still get useful info on your search.

The goal with the checkbox description items is to include enough terms for a useful, searchable description without adding so many checkboxes that adding entries becomes difficult.

Please check this thread in the Pepper Forum http://davesgarden.com/forums/t/467536/ so you can see the process we went through there to improve pepper-specific details in PlantFiles. Thanks!

I am new at AV but here is some suggestions using the info on the sites and the Optimara Evergrace mentioned by begonia:
For height a checkbox for standards, semi, minatures, perhaps trailers.
Checkboxes for blossoms would include single, double, semi double and sticklite (non-dropping)
Blossom Shape checkbox: pansy, pansy frilled, star, star frilled
Daylilies have color pattern description that include eye zones
Blossom Coloured Edges: contrasting colour; same family color but edge is darker or brighter colour.
Leaf Edges: Plain, Ruffled, Scalloped, Serrated, Spooned, Wavy
Leaf Shapes: Girl Tailored, Heart, Holly, Longifolia, Ovate, Pointed, Round
Leaf Variegations: Crown, Girl Foliage, Mosaic, Tommy Lou
I hope this helps. Linda

I like the notion of splitting the foliage criteria into 3 groups like that to make it less confusing.

Does anybody know... is "Champion variegation" the same as "mosaic" variegation?

Also, does anybody know where to find an AVSA list of descriptive criteria used in describing a variety for registration? There must be a registration application....

We should probably add "large standard" to size classification.... If we made "trailer" a separate heading checkbox, then we would not need to specify "standard trailer," "mini trailer," etc.

I'll ask Terry if we can incorporate a link to AVSA definitions for blossom & foliage description terms. For the size classification, we can include a "mature size under X inches" in parentheses after each size. I'm think those mature sizes are under 6 inches for minis & under 8 inches for semi-minis, but I don't know the size that separates a standard from a large standard.... anyone?

http://www.optimara.com/optimaraglossary/l-lea.html has some descriptions.

Champion description : http://www.optimara.com/optimaraglossary/c-chl.html

You can go to the top where the encyclopedias are and click on the letters for other descriptions.

From this site the size is described:
Standard African Violets are single-crowned and have a diameter of 8 inches or more.
And, Large, standard African Violets are 14 to 16 inches in diameter and are normally grown in 4-inch pots.
And, Extra large, standard African Violets are over 16 inches in diameter and are typically grown in 6-inch pots

I am learning alot. Linda

Champion foliage is named after Ethel Champion ! She was the first to progate Champion foliage, yellow crown and Mosaic.
Champion is a crown variegation and mosaic is a variegation type of the whole plant.
Also with trailer 's they are not measures by size like reg. Av's Miniatures, Semi-miniatures, standards and large. AVSA does not have a place for Micors yet.
Trailers are by leaf size. A miniature trailer can be grown so large it can fill a 12 inch pot and hang over.
With trailers we have Minaitures, Semi's, and Standards and it's all by leaf size.

Jill here is AVSa Plant Registration
PLANT REGISTRATION INFORMATION

The African Violet Society of America, Inc. (AVSA) is the authorized international agent for registration of the genus Saintpaulia (commonly known as the African violet). You may name and register a plant if it meets certain requirements:
http://www.avsa.org/RegistrationInfo.htm

Jill I would also use AVSA Blossom and Foliage Criteria
http://www.avsa.org/BlossomFoilage.htm

Thanks... I think those were the links I was looking for, was just having trouble navagating the AVSA site... I'll take a look at them over the weekend, and I'll send Terry a note with a link to this thread. As I said, the trick is deciding how many criteria can reasonably included, and whether it's OK to group some criteria together. Maybe when Terry sees how many "official" criteria there are, she'll rethink allowing us to enter a text block for the description rather than wade through a long checklist.... I think we should be guided by her, though, as she knows what will be most useful to most people and what will work best with the search features.

I feel you will like the AVSa Blossoms and Foliage link.Perfect for check boxes.They cover "official" criteria .It sure takes a lot of work, long time all paper work notes and more to register a plant and be approved !

I don't have any information to add... but wanted to cheer you on!

This seems like a BIG task you are biting off, and I can't think of a better person to do it! :) You'll sort through what's most important and this will undoubtedly lead to great interface between members and our PF. :) GO, JILL!

Sarah

I absolutely support RDT's checkbox list. I think that an AVS registration number field would be very imprtant.

Other leaf descriptions, subtle flower description, etc, (like other plants in PF) ought to be left up to the member descriptions. ESPECIALLY seeing as how many plants look different under different conditions!

I hope I didn't goof any of this up when I added a few violets.

I think that our PlantFiles can even surpass (in a way) FC because of our better photographs. AV forum photos have been 10 time better than FC official photos more than a couple times.

I think that no one has to go through and add all 20 bazillion violets at once, they could be added as we discuss them, trade them, learn about them and salivate over them... I know that certain ones get discussed into depth, and these times would be best for that.

May I also make the public announcement that we ought to make sure that the first (and therefore on-top) picture be a very good one of the entire (incl. flowers) plant. I have seena few irritating plants whose first thumbnail representing it is a seedling, a sick plant, etc.

My thoughts, Kenton

The first photo tip is a good one, Kenton.... it's fun to see a fabulous thumbnail pic when you look up a plant!

An AVS registration number field may be a good idea, but I don't want people to think they shouldn't add a variety to PF because they don't know its registration number... and there are unregistered named varieties also (I'm not just talking about noids we name ourselves, but about some varieties that have been around from years, from known hybridizers)... As it stands, there are fields in PF now for "hybridizer" and "registration date" which should make it possible to find a registration number.

Foliage type & variegation and blossom type (fully double, wasp, etc) can certainly be handled in checkboxes, it's just a matter of figuring out how many checkboxes are necessary and how to organize them. I do like the way RDT organized the foliage criteria, and I want to see if we can work in additional AVSA foliage & blossom criteria without having the checkboxes become overwhelming.

Bloom color is the description element that I think is subject to the most variatibility due to differences in growing conditions and differences in perceptions of color, not to mention the chance of instability or sporting. That's why I think a few general categories of color might be better than lots of checkboxes for bloom color... for example, pink/red could be one color checkbox, rather that light pink, rose, bubblegum pink, magenta, maroon, lavender-pink, etc...

I know leaf variegation can also vary with growing conditions, but I think that's more along the lines of having a plant that *can* show mosaic variegation being all green instead, and not an issue like a mosaic vareigated plant changing to a TLV leaf under different conditions.

I do feel if it is a named plant wether registered or in FC or not. Not all named plants are registered in FC as I'm sure you noticed some don't have registration numbers...
If it has an officail Description from First Class, the Hybridizer we should make sure this is correct not having named plants up there with wrong descriptions.
This can become confusing and could become a prolbem with the Hybridizers. I don't think you'd like to work hard to hybridize a plant and register it's name and description and have people write up what ever they feel about it . This could mean in correct information out there. It could cause problems.
If it's a noid that's one thing describe it and let it be known it's a noid. If it is registered or named give the correct "official" criteria . Theses plants are registered , names ..we can't go and put wrong information it could be fraud and very misleading .

That's fine in principle, Allision, and I quite agree with sticking to the "official" criteria for the checkboxes... unofficial additions or observations can always be added as a note. HOWEVER... once these checkboxes have been added to the AV pages in PF.... anyone who adds a plant to PF can and will check whatever boxes they think are appropriate, and they may not bother to look up the "ofricial" description first. Mistakes can be corrected by another person by clicking on "report an error," but we still need to bear in mind that the PF database information is submitted by lots & lots of individuals, and accuracy can't be guaranteed.

To some extent, I think using checkboxes with official criteria will reduce people just "writing up whatever they feel about" a plant. If they don't know they "official" terms to describe the foliage, they may leave that part blank, and then somebody else can put in the information later.

Which leads me to something I recently learned from Terry on another forum... Where information about a particular cultivar is listed as "unknown," you can just click on the heading to go to the checkbox list and add what you know. But if information is already present under a heading, then you have to "Report an Error" in order to get additional information put there. (For example, if both color & pattern checkboxes are under the heading of "leaf variegation," and somebody has already entered that the plant has "crown variegation," then you have to "Report an Error" in order to add the information that the leaves are var. with pink & cream.)

Yes and I was also thinking PF files are open to everyone . So if you use AVSA info
with check boxes from what are used in Fc descriptions for exampls
1 Bell: Single blossoms with a bell shape
2. Chimera: Blossoms, with stripes that radiate from the center pinwheel
3. Star: Blossoms have five lobes of about equal size and distance from one another. The blossoms can be single, semidouble, or double. The double star has extra layers of petals but maintains the star form
>>>>>>
and so on from their list. Give what it is and description so some knows what a start is, or wasp, and so one..
And with foliage the same.
1. Compound, Wasp Bustle, or Piggyback: Leaves are compound with one large and two smaller lobes
2. Girl: Deeply scalloped leaves usually rounded or heart-shaped with white to yellow markings at the base of each leaf. These markings can extend to the leaf blades and edges of the leaf
3. Variegated: Leaves (in addition to shades of green) can be marked with white, cream, light yellow, or rosy shades from light pink to a deep wine red.
A. Variegated foliage: Defines all variegation other than two listed below.
B. Crown Variegation
C. Mosaic variegation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And so on !
I was going to stay out of this but PF files, registered plants, open to public I had to give my two cents :))

I will email Terry about all this on Monday and ask her to "watch" this thread. I like the idea of including all the AVSA characteristics and also of putting definitions.... BUT that is going to be a whole lot of information and may be beyond what Terry is willing/able to do. Perhaps the PF pages for AVs could include a link to our AV sticky, or just to the AVSA site with the definitions....

Allison, there's no reason for you to stay out of this -- I think your input will help ensure that the descriptions of registered plants don't get muddled, or at least that muddling is avoided as much as possible!

The volume of information on PF is certainly greatly increased by its being "open to the public," but that sword cuts both ways, as that aspect also makes it easier for inaccuracies to creep in.

And you know, it just occurred to me.... all the discussion we've been having about how to keep the information accurate for named cultivars.... perhaps it would be better to have *fewer* checkboxes, not more, and to let people look up the "official" description elsewhere.

This started with my idea that the PF descriptions needed to include size classification information. Checkboxes for the rest of this may be something that sounds better in principle than it may be in reality... Any thoughts on this?

What information MUST be included about AV varieties as they are entered in PF?

For example...
Cultivar name
Hybridizer
Registration date (if applicable)
AVSA registration number (if applicable)
Size Classification (standard, large standard, semi-miniature, miniature)

Any other data field that is absolutely vital?

We could add an "Other Characteristics" heading with checkboxes for "special features" such as trailing variety, variegated foliage, unusual foliage (catch-all term for girl, longifolia, etc), semidouble/double blooms, frilled or edged blooms.... This would be a far from exhaustive list, but would still be useful to people searching for AVs with particular features.

We'll see what Terry's thoughts are, but I think we may be approaching a list of headings and checkboxes that is too long and too detailed for PF, judging by the sort of info that's been included for other plants.

Well if there is not enough space for the information of a Bell , Chimera , Star, Double and so on can still reference their list for description names. and list the foliage type with check boxes without the extra information. I just feel it is important for people listing Named African violet 's especially people from our group that under stand the importance
of correct information who understand it's important to enter proper information and not just put in what your eyes see.
If the check boxes are as close as can be and room wise( that Terry has and can do) according to AVSA Descriptions I feel this would help. There can be a check box for Noids. and then info filled in.
Any web sight we go to for example the Streptocarpus or Epsica web sight ...you would like to trust who ever put them together gave correct information for you to read and learn by.
If you look at AVSA blossom and foliage types it give the types used in proper descriptions of African violets.

Explaining like they do then listing the most common foliage/blossom types.
African violet foliage ranges in color from light green through a dark mahogany green. Markings on variegated foliage (in addition to shades of green) can be white, cream, light yellow, or rosy shades from light pink to a deep wine red. Beside color, the shapes of the leaves are also distinctive. The more common foliage types are:then list the most common ones with check boxes. AVSa has this list I sent you the link. The list could be used with out explaining what a bell, or girl, ...and so on is if there is not enough room.
ust like they did with blossoms types ;
The variety of colors, shapes, and forms of the African violet blossom has increased over the years. Some of the more important are the following:
Then they give a list of the main blossoms types which we could have check boxes for :))
It's sweet simple and does not and it keeps with using correct information
I would hope if one of us posted a named plant and we don't have first class to find out the proper blossom type and foliage we would ask someone who does for the information.

Yes what you said is good " Characteristics" heading with checkboxes for "special features " But when you go to blossoms and foliage types you are going to use with check boxes...I would go to AVSA list to reference ( when making check boxes) the "Some of the more important " Blossoms used .
Also the for foliage their list gives " The more common foliage types used"
These are most important and most commonly used
not cute little names people use to describe the blossom or foliage .
Keep it sweet and simply :))

Allison, what I was thinking is that a better way to avoid confusion and wrong information may be to NOT include all the foliage and blossom descriptions as checkboxes (which could be wrongly marked by anybody... again remember that access to PF is not limited to AV forum members).

Do you think all the foliage and bloom description information is a MUST for the PF page? I agree that the AVSA link may give us the simplest set of checkboxes to use, with a dozen terms under "Blossom Types" and another dozen terms under "Foliage Types." We'll ask to see if there is a way to include a link to the page with the AVSA definitions of the terms.

Please, everyone click on the link above and tell me if you think we need some of those terms, all of those terms, or more terms than are listed there as checkbox items?

If we were to just include some items under "Other Information," rather than trying to include all the descriptive terms, which items would you most want to be able to search for in the PF database?

I realize that any of us with FC could search there for AVSA registered varieties... but what "Other Information" terms would be useful to most folks?

Remember that we could also choose to copy & paste the "official" registered description instead, when adding a "note" about a variety.... that may be less cumbersome than all the checkboxes? And it would be easy enough to do when adding a variety to the database, not to mention it would be an easier way to add or correct a description than sending Terry a ton of "Report an Error" items.

I realize I've just made this discussion take a left turn at Albequerque... but sometimes simpler is better, and I wanted to know if people think this might be one of those times.

Yes I agree.. one reason I did not want to put my two cents in. If it can not have correct information don't have it. PF files are open to non-paying people to their open for reference to everyone.
You said it perfect " NOT include all the foliage and blossom descriptions as checkboxes to avoid wrong information. ~~
I would not want to go to a sight for reference on named plants and not have it correct. Like AVSA photographs. They have the name and picture that's it. Why would people want to suport AVSA and buy FC if all the information was given with the Photo's.
I say keep it sweet and simple and only areas for information that can be correct.

BTW, I just emailed Terry with an update on our discussion here, and links to this thread and to the AVSA page we've been discussing. I'll post about her response, or maybe she'll just post directly to this thread.

I'm glad she's willing to make changes/additions for us! Thanks, Terry!

A couple thoughts so all of you can understand why we do things the way we do them.

Colors. We can't have a free-form text field. We tried that once, and it was a disaster. People entered all sorts of bizarre information, and it was impossible to search for all plants of a specific color. (Think about how many ways you could describe a purple bloom: lavender, violet, indigo, deep violet, plum, dusky purple, etc.)

If the AV society has a standard list of flower colors we can use that, along with any other standard descriptions they apply to new registrations.

Registered cultivars If AVs have an ISHS-recognized registry, we should stick with registered names only. I know this can be a thorny issue, but we can't allow people to use PlantFiles as a backdoor means of getting a name "validated" - that's not our purpose, and we can't run counter to the international naming bodies that are already in place.

Photos Instead of trying to engineer the sequence of photos to get the "best" one on top, you can enter photos for plants as you have the time and inclination. We can always change the photo order within any entry - you can use the "report an error" link to alert us to a photo that should be moved to the top.

It looks like y'all are off to a good start, and I need to scoot this morning. I'll keep up with this thread, and try to provide some clarification and guidance as you go.