African Violet *Plant Files*

There is no reason you can't just post the AVSA description as a comment in PF and ignore the checkboxes. I'm more concerned about having incorrect culture info in the PF than about the descriptions.

If I were entering Rob's Cool Fruit, from looking at that description I'd check off:
Bloom Color
pink
white

Flower Characteristics
double
pansy
edged

Leaf Shape
pointed
serrated

Leaf Color
crown variegation
tan/gold variegation

I just looked up the PF page for 'Robs Cool Fruit', and those are the listed characteristics... except that the person entering chose white/cream variegation rather than tan/gold, and that may well be more accurate... I don't have that one, but if you think there is definitely yellow or gold variegation also then you could submit an error report to that effect (and both tan/gold and white/cream variegation could then be listed, which would cover the "white" and "yellow" in the registered description).

Everybody who saw that thread this spring had an opportunity to speak up what should be in the description checkboxes, and many people made suggestions or additions that were incorporated in the PF pages. The registered description is the best thing to go by, but hopefully the checkboxes will help people search PF to find varieties they're looking for. The checkboxes aren't meant to replace the registered description but to give some searchable information about the cultivar.

I'm sorry, I know this is going off the topic about fixing the misinformation in the PF entries, but I wanted to make one more effort to clarify what I thought the PF revision was meant to do. If there's further discussion needed, we should probably start a new thread for it. :-)

I take it from this discussion that we are using the descriptions to fill out the checkboxes? I don't have First Class. Is there any way someone could copy and paste a bunch of descriptions for me and I can get started on a "block" of entries. If someone comes along and says the plant grows different for them, then they can add those changes later or make a comment at the bottom. I really like the PlantFiles- they are what attracted me to DG in the first place and I'd love to help out.

Here is an example of species saintpaulia ionantha in PlantFiles and what someone submitted for details. Careless mistake?


http://davesgarden.com/pf/go/738/

Bloom Color:
Pink
Magenta (Pink-Purple)
Red
Violet/Lavender
White/Near White


Flower Characteristics:
Single
Double
Semi-double
Pansy
Bell
Fringed
Star
Wasp
Multicolor
Chimera
Fantasy
Edged
Bicolor
Two-tone
Ruffled (frilled or wavy)
Sticktite

The correct info for blossom should be:
single blue-violet

**********************************************************************************
On african violets in general - detail of 'soil pH of 5.6 - 6.0' should be deleted.

*********************************************************************************

On streptocarpus in general - details of 'hardiness zones' should be deleted as is incorrect and N/A

On streptocarpus in general - details of sun exposure that say 'full sun to partial shade' should be deleted. Correct would be partial shade to shade.

******************************************************************************************


Thanks gain, JoanJ, for helping to straighten things out.

Hold on a minute...aren't streps hardy to a tropical zone? I'm sure they are hardy somewhere.

About the ionatha...I noticed it also seems to be some kind of photo dumping ground. Can we get some of those incorrect photos deleted as well?

That's just bizarre that somebody would check off every box like that... somebody is either really confused about how to enter PF info, or they're deliberately entering misinformation.

Is that page maybe the one people think is the "general" entry for African violets (including all the hybrids) rather than realizing it's supposed to be the page for the pure species? I thought it was a "general" page when I saw all the photos... in which case, all the leaf description boxes should be checked also, to show the full range of variations. Confusion!

I'm not certain, but from the previous discussions with Terry I don't think it's possible to have only one option or item in the description... we were trying to find a way to just put in the right pH range, sun exposure, etc, for all AVs (or streps), but there was a reason that PF didn't or couldn't work that way... It would be nice to be able to do that, though! Maybe there's a way to make it happen? That would at least correct the errors that could lead to somebody killing a plant (say, putting a strep out in full sun and/or leaving it outside in winter).

Joan, thanks for looking at this! You can see you've got a bunch of folks willing to help and waiting to hear how best to go about it...

(edited because Kitten hit "send" for me -- too soon!)

This message was edited Aug 4, 2007 7:45 PM

S. ionantha (saintpaulia species) Date: 1893

Single blue-violet, 4-5 per peduncle, very floriferous. dark green, pointed, heart-shaped, tends to spoon, thick, quilted, glossy, slightly serrated, long red-brown petiole/red back. Large.

cjolene - yes, streps are hardy "somewhere" in special environmental niches in the mountains of S.Africa mostly, but the USDA (US Department of Agriculture) hardiness zones in the United States are not applicable. Read what they say :)

I'm still reading this thread, and doing a little research of my own. However, I am waiting for the other editors to weigh in with their input also, and that might not be until after the weekend.

I do think that S. ionatha entry needs to be changed... and maybe the photos could be moved to a catch-all entry of Saintpaulia (African violet), with no specific cultivar?

Joan, we'll just hope that somebody can come up with an good way to get thing straightened out in an orderly fashion... and we'll all be standing by to see how we can help!

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Snowrose. ; )

Good idea of a catch-all Saintpaulia entry. I second the motion. lol!

By the way, nice seeing you again, JoanJ! It's been a while!

From my email and notes, per Jon Dixon, past president of AGGS, streps can take it down to 30F. But he didn't specify which Streps or whether they need some protection..... (Since he is out in Cal, I would imagine this is 30F without sleet and icy rain.) Vincent Parsons reported a blue Weismoor-type as hardy in Portland, OR - sometimes surviving without any protection. It would definitely be hardy in some US zones.

I know I have read an article about growing them outside, but I can't seem to locate it right now. Obviously they would not grow like a houseplant and would probably look dead in the winter.....

Also, I think there is enough of a range in the genus (and a lot are available in the US) that it's dangerous to generalize across the board.


Edited to add that I found the article. Gloxinia Vo. 53, No2 (2d quarter 2003). Arleen Dewell reporting on growing Strep Arleen and Achilles out on a balcony in Vancouver. (Note that the temps on a balc are generally lower as there is no residual warmth from the ground.) Apparently they needed protection from the rain in the winter, and she did give them extra protection during about 10 days of -5 to -7C (about 21 F). I checked the register and although both hybrids are listed, there is no parentage info.

This message was edited Aug 4, 2007 10:24 PM

Digging through more of my emails....

Strep dunnii grows in full sun. Obviously not one of the common ones but....

And here's a photo and more info: http://www.gesneriads.ca/strep%20298.htm

So, are you saying we should leave the strep plantfiles across the board as they are? Or, should just those rare exceptions if entered in plantfiles have the cultural information as you have described which is what would make sense to me.

Hey, if anyone wants to grow streps down to 30F, so be it. Good luck.

Which zones would you recommend for planting streps in plantfiles?

Those sound like exceptions rather than the rule for hardiness of streps in general... would it be better to add that information as a comment on those PF pages? I'm just learning about streps, and I don't think I'd have much luck keeping them outside in the cold... I looked around to see what I could find about them, and I noticed that Rob's doesn't send out streps in cool/cold weather (they stop shipping streps earlier than they stop shipping AVs, I think), but that could be an adaptability thing rather than hardiness as such.

I've seen other notes in PF to the effect that under this or that condition the plant grew beyond its listed hardiness range, so I'm guessing that range should reflect usual growing conditions rather than extremes. But one of the PF admins can probably advise us about that, too.

Is there a generally accepted preferred temperature range for streps? What hardiness should be listed to give people the best chance of success growing them? Or do culture requirements just vary for each cultivar or species (like the full sun that Strep dunnii likes)?

We are currently discussing this, trying to come up with the best way to handle the corrections.

Terry said she can take the fields for spacing, zones, and pH out of the form for African Violets, if they aren't applicable . Would that be agreeable for everyone? The other errors, leaf, color,flower, etc., would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis through error reports to the helpdesk.

Alternatively, we could ask Dave to reset the current entries with the proper zones, spacing and pH, but what to set them at would have to be determined first. Also, I don't think, (Terry, correct me if I'm wrong), that these fields will be pre-filled on any future entries.

Any thoughts?

Joan is correct. If we can "sweet-talk" Dave into standardizing the checkboxes for pH and zone on the entries, that means two things:

1) It will affect ALL entries in that genus - we can't pick and choose which entries to have him systematically change, and which to skip past.

2) It's a one-time change, so after he goes through and adjusts all the existing entries, any new entries created after that can be checked off by users (who might do it correctly or incorrectly.)

From previous discussion, it seems like pH, light, and water requirements are the same for all entries in Saintpaulia, but it would be good to check that with somebody like Keyring who has more experience with some of the species AVs.

I'm still not quite certain why the pH checkbox list, for example, can't be replaced for all entries in the genus with the phrase "pH 6.1 to 6.5 (mildly acidic)" (which the expert growers here seem to think is true across the board for Saintpaulia), just the same way we put in a new category headline for things like leaf texture? Maybe that's just not possible with the way PF is set up.

* Streptocarpus cannot be grown successfully outdoors all year round in any of the USDA zones. So, none should be set as it is N/A.

* Since african violets are now with a list of choices for plant details, I did notice under "leaf color" that there is no option for solid green leaves such as light green, medium green, dark green, or black green as would be described in the official hybridizer's description in the Master Variety List.

* Correct pH for african violets is 6.4 - 6.9

* Spacing is N/A for violets and streps

We have to get this done right this time and not go through all of this for nothing.

The pH can be changed for all existing entries, as long as we accept that:

a) all of them will be changed to the same checked-off boxes; and
b) new entries will not have anything automatically checked off, so those entries may be checked off wrong.

If you're asking why we can't have just one pH option for AVs, that begs the question: why include pH if it's the same for all?

Remember that the checkboxes serve two purposes:

Primarily, to inform the reader of that particular species or cultivar's unique characteristics and horticultural requirements as they read the entry. If the pH is the same for all, it's rather a moot point, and of not much benefit to the reader.

Secondarily the details allow a member to run an Advanced Search and let the database find plants that meet their criteria. If the pH is the same for all AVs, then specifying the pH in an Advanced Search wouldn't narrow down the list much ;o)

"why include pH if it's the same for all?"

Because people look to PF for culture information. If I wanted to know if my violets were turning yellow because of a pH issue, I would test the soil they're in, and then I would search PF (or elsewhere) to find out what the "right" pH should be.

I don't see many people searching for houseplants based on their pH... it's not like you'd test your potting mix and say, now let's see what will grow in that? :-)

ROFLOL! Sorry, I didn't mean to be quite that flippant.

One more question for the PF admins...

Will photos and comments be unaffected by whatever we do to fix things? I wanted to check, because I know some folks are uploading additions, and I didn't want that effort to be wasted.

Thanks to everybody who's taking on this issue!

Oh, and Snowrose, I think the "shades of green" came up before.... and if I'm remembering right, Terry thought it was too subjective a distinction. I think her assumption was that not everybody would be entering details by reading the registered description; some people would just look at their named plant and describe it, and not including the different shades of green would lead to fewer errors.

Some discrepancies between the PF checklists and the registered descriptions are bound to happen... the same thing happens with daylilies and other registered hybrids, when people input characteristics without having the description in front of them... it's just part of having a database "by gardeners for gardeners." :-)

Photos and comments will not be affected.

Here's why we don't have checkboxes for green: http://davesgarden.com/forums/p.php?pid=3293740

I see your point about people just entering details such as leaf color, etc., in Plant Files based on whatever they imagine it might be right or wrong according to their own guesstimation and not what it should be.

Thanks, Terry! I wasn't quite remembering that explanation -- didn't mean to try to put words in your mouth!

I only have one thing to beg of all of you...................

if you don't have a nice size blooming plant, please don't send it to plant files for a baby plant with one bloom. Just wait and someone will be growing a beautiful nice size plant. We don't need to have every AV in the files today,

Please please let people add them as they grow a beautiful plant to maturity and post it in the files.

Administration will eventually get this growing in 20 and 30degree weather, etc. all worked out and get the files in gesneriads as they ought to be.

And...............all of you who grow in this family, please add to files the plants that you do have..........thanks

I'm pretty sure that admin can change the order of the photos if requested. A baby plant first bloom photo is better than no photo, I think... and if somebody else later submits a photo of a plant in full bloom, an note to admin can put the stunning photo as the first one that comes up. This came up before, although I can't remember in which forum, and I think the solution from admin was to submit an error report with the request for a change.

So, as long as there's a way to change the photos around afterward (and I'm sure somebody from admin will let us know if I'm not remembering that right), I don't think there's any reason to discourage people from submitting photos of whatever size plant... ?

whatever.............if you think people can get a vision of what a plant looks like that has just arrived from a vendor, so be it....................i have nothing else to say, Critter.................you may certainly have it your way................if administration feels the same way as you do. I am not uploading of full grown plants and then post an error to replace a picture..............time wasted...................and arrogant at that.................

Actually it's good to have photos of both full-size plants and juvenile plants, in bloom and not, especially if there are interesting and unique characteristics that can be picked up with the camera.

When people are using PlantFiles to compare to their own plant, it's nice to have images similar to what your plant looks like today, and what it *could* look like when it grows up.

In that respect, PlantFiles is different from a "photo gallery" which is usually a series of "picture-perfect" blooming plants, showing them off to their full advantage. (There's absolutely nothing wrong with the gallery approach, but it's not what PlantFiles is for ;o) And yes, we can rearrange the images within each entry, so if you see one that needs to have the deck re-shuffled a bit, let us know.

Beyond AVs, we encourage gardeners to add closeup detailed images of mundane things like seed pods, seeds, leaf buds, bare branches, leaves, bark, newly-sprouted seedlings, etc. Why? Because it helps with identification to have images of the plant and all its components at every stage, from seedling to fully mature.

As far as straightening out PlantFiles, a couple things to keep in mind:

1) It's only as good as you - the resident AV lovers and experts - will help us make it. Our editors are well-versed in general botany and nomenclature matters, but none of us is an AV specialist.

So.....if you know a detail, add it where you can. Or add a comment about your experience with a particular vareity. And when you see an error, let us know via the red "report an error" button.

2) There's no time like the present to let us know about those errors. Please don't feel you need to wait until the temps drop to tell us what needs to be fixed. We're busy now, but we're just as busy in the winter...there's never a "slow" period ;o)

I'm not trying to "have my way," and I think you have a good point about wanting the first photo to be a good, representative one. But I'm just suggesting that there's another way to go about that. :-)

I just don't want people to feel that they can't upload a photo for a plant that has no photo yet unless that photo is a perfect picture of a "nice size blooming plant." With so much variability due to age, growing conditions, etc, it's nice to have a bunch of photos in a PF entry.

There are a lot of places in PF where the first photo posted was of a seedling sprout or a seed pod, and I think the PF admins are willing to shuffle those photos around so there's a more representative photo that shows first with the PF entry.

It's definitely valuable to have photos of young plants (or sprouts or seeds) in PF, but I agree that it's nicer when the first photo in the file is of a mature, blooming or fruiting plant. There's no arrogance in suggesting that photos could be re-ordered when a more representative photo is uploaded.

:-) :-) :-)

(extra smilies are meant to indicate that I'm offering suggestions, not criticism!)

:-)

I have no problems with Terry's approach..............everyone is looking for something different in a plant. To me I want to know exactly the color and shape of the foliage and I want to know how large the plant is at maturity. For example, you could grow Streptocarpus 'Thumbelina for years and still have a beautiful very compact plant. On the other hand, you can't hold back other cultivars and they can reach up to 20" across. These are what I look for in determining whether I want to grow the plant.(plus the bloom, but the bloom is on down my list of priorities in choosing what to grow)

Now, I just wish that we could all start uploading pictures..............many are posted on the AV forum but never make it to plant files. I am going to try real hard to find the time to do this. I am hoping that everyone who grows these plants will do the same...............we can have magnificent files but only if we want them.

Well for what it's worth, I would like to say that sometimes only photos of blooms or pictures of the plant taken from above are posted and I like to see the entire plant to see how the blooms behave - do they stand up above the leaves on their own, do they lay on the leaves, do they have short or long stems, etc. Please don't get me wrong, I do like seeing a close up of the bloom, but a picture of the whole plant, blooms and leaves and how it looks from the side and top would be more helpful. And......some may disagree and that's OK, but this is from experience - sometimes the plant as received from the vendor with the first bloom is not at all how the plant will look after it matures and has that second flush of bloom. Often even the bloom color or shade of color will change. If a photo is posted of a plant straight from the vendor with the first bloom, it should be identified as such and not posted as a true representation of the plant.

gessiegail, if you can get everyone to start uploading images, that would be great!

Susan, I agree with you - pictures of the whole plant are also very helpful (not just for AVs.)

And the caption is an excellent place to indicate a summary of the photo's details like maturity/age of plant, season the photo was taken, etc.

Terry the caption is a good idea, we could have an idea of how old the plant is and if it is a shy bloomer or heavy bloomer at maturity.

Another great option is the comment field where anyone (with or without an image to share) can describe how the plant has done for them, and/or any cultivation notes they may have pertaining to it.

Yes, and the comment field is where people have been entering the registered description, if they have it available... so be sure to check the comments on an AV page!

So that we can move forward with trying to get the current details straightened out, what is the general consensus as to how to handle the fields for spacing and pH?

1) Do we want to leave those fields in and correct them individually through error reports because each cultivar would be different ?

2) If the information would be consistent for each entry, see if Dave will reset the current entries with pre-determined data that is accurate for all the entries?

3) Or are they not applicable to African Violets, and those fields should be removed from the African Violet form?

This is only for spacing and pH. The other fields where the data would be cultivar specific will have to be handled on a case by case basis through error reports, and we don't mind doing that.

I just had the computer tech bring me a new photo program to simplify everything............so excited!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would much rather be uploading photos this week but I have to pot up plants.....................

************our plant files will be no better than we make them.........

I am staying out of the discussion on space and pH..........that is snow's territory................I don't have any expertise on much of that

Since we've essentially replaced the height and spacing information with the size classification that was added to the AV pages, option 3 seems like the right choice for the spacing checklist -- let's get rid of it.

I'm thinking option 2 for pH, since as far as I know that's the same for all Saintpaulia. (If anybody knows differently, please chime in!)

Is there any way to set that pH value so it will also be chosen for any future Saintpaulia addition to PF? In effect, this would be a matter of replacing the checkbox with a statement of the optimal pH range for AVs... Last time we discussed this, I think people said that value should be set at 6.1 to 6.5, but Snowrose mentioned above that the value should be 6.4 to 6.9... I think that's probably right, since it seems I've always heard "mildly acidic" (eg, just below the neutral pH value of 7).

Let me see if I can find that number on the AVSA site (seems like they'd be an appropriate authority)... Hmmm, it's not on the general care page, however in the quesitons and answers (by Joyce Stark), she mentions an optimal pH range of 6.5 to 6.8, and in another place she just says 6.8.

So, to make sure it's the same in future entries, it seems like it might be best to have only a single statement for pH rather than a checkbox... but if we can't do that, setting the pH values to the correct range for all existing entries seems like the way to go.