Cultivars and varieties in the database?

Many plants, (two that spring to mind are daylilies and roses) have hundreds if not thousands of cultivars and varieties.

Dave gets the final say in this, but for all you who are contributing to and/or using the plants database - should we recommend that Dave add a section for cultivars, just like there are sections for General Description, propagation, etc.? That way, once a plant (family, genus, species) is in the database, you could add a description section for each particular variety.

Or, would it be more logical to list each variety as its own entry? Many times, the varieties share the same general characteristics - height, blooming season, hardiness, etc. with all others in the species, but bloom color is the main difference.

I *think* I would prefer to see one general description per species, then sections for each variety, but that's just one person's opinion.

Any other thoughts/opinions here? The more we add to the database, the more important this decision becomes (changing an ever-increasing number of entries after the fact could become very time consuming if we hesitate too long on this decision.)

And just to reiterate, Dave gets final say since he's the one who has to manage the database, but I'm sure he'd appreciate some discussion and input on the pros and cons of each approach.

Which way would make it easier to locate a particular cultivar? While I enjoy just "thumbing thru" the data base I also like to be able to find a particular plant in a hurry. So which ever works the best is fine by me.

Go-vols,

You are crazy. If you start listing cultivars and hybrds undr separate lists we will be overwhelmed. Cultivars are basically just freaks of nature which still belong to that same family (latin named) grouped. If you allow these to be posted as separate entities you will undo the efforts you and others are making to bring the database to some kind of order.

Latin convention names may be a [deleted] - but they what the international community understands.

El Tel

El, I guess it's safe to say that you feel strongly about this issue :)

And I agree with your logic (except the part about me being crazy, LOL!); however, this problem already exists within the category of roses, and it's starting to creep in with daylilies. To a certain degree, I bumped up against it this morning while adding several Pulmonarias (just for the record, I listed the varieties as a "general description" under the species.)

It's also a matter of how Dave chooses to set up the database, since placing cultivars under the species adds another layer to the database. That's why I opened it up for discussion before adding my recommendation to a list of other additions/changes I've given to Dave.

I'm sorry if my original question was fuzzy; I wasn't suggesting that we do circumvent Latin naming convention; I was just trying to figure out the best way to manage the cultivars/varieties within the database, since right now it's being addressed on an entry-by-entry basis, with some going under the species, and others being listed as separate entries.

I almost think that a couple of them should have their own category. I'm not sure there's enough daylily lovers to warrant a seperate category though... maybe there is.

I think a few popular cultivars under the genus name is good.... but then again you don't want a single entry to be a mile long because there's a zillion hybrids listed. Same with iris. I guess you can't really stop people from adding their own entries and you gotta know that they'll keep adding more.

There seems to be a lot of rose lovers. Maybe the rose category should be seperated into sub-categories? - Like Hybrid Teas; Floribunda, miniatures or whatever. Just a thought.

GV perhaps the real problem is we are listing them by type (Bulbs,perennials, etc..). If we just stuck to Family names as the root, wouldn't that also encompass hybrids etc.. BTW I dont really think you are crazy; maybe just a tad off the wall with enthusiasm !! LOL

El Tel

PoppySue, you've drawn a bead on the real issue: do we want an entry to be a mile long? Wellllllll, perhaps we do, if all cultivars should fall under the species. It is nice to read someone's actual experience with a particular variety. That's one of the things that can make this database unique from other plants databases.

As for sub-categories for the roses, I really don't know the answer to that thorny issue (pun intended). I think to set up the sub-categories would require some programming "magic" on Dave's part, so that those sub-categories would only be displayed if one chooses Roses as the category; it is a good concept, though. Perhaps some rose growers will chime in here with their thoughts on how to best address this one.

El is going in the opposite direction, which also has merit. We didn't have categories when the database was small. As it grew, we added them to make finding plants easier. And I think it's helpful to gardeners - especially newer gardeners - looking for plants. The categories put plants in intuitive and conventional, (if not entirely accurate or scientifically logical) groupings. I'm not comfortable suggesting that we use families to replace categories at this point, but I am very interested in hearing opinions and suggestions so let's keep the discussion going.

I'm all for having the different cultivars & hybrids listed ... just not sure I'd want them all on the same entry. I think the whole issue is very confusing to a lot of members that are just a bit timid about the whole Family - Genus - Species thing. I was thinking of plugging in some of the tulip species or even narcissus. There are loads of species... and then zillions of hybrids. I think it's all just too confusing for those that don't have a clue what species their hybrid is (myself included)... Do I make sense? So the easy solution has been to leave them out or create new entries. - In my Hort book the tulips and narcissus are divided into sub-groups (i.e.. Triumph group; Double Early Group; Double late group... etc) This seems a bit easier to sort them.

As the database gets bigger it will get more & more complex >>> I almost think that a large genus like either of them should be set up by one person - just to keep it orderly. And then members could plug in the entries after it has been set up properly.

Interesting thread. A couple notes to make about what we already have:

When you add a section to a plant, you get a pull-down menu where you can select the type of section you are creating (General description, how to germinate seed, alternative propagation methods, etc). One of those items is something like "Cultivar Name and Description".

That's there to give people a place to name a cultivar of that species and describe it.

Then, in the "Upload a picture to this plant" area, you can then add a picture of your cultivar, giving it's name in the caption, like: "Dave's Cantaloupe Delight Cultivar".

But the idea of grouping cultivars into a more neatly controlled area is appealing, and has actually been discussed before between Melody and myself. Melody has uploaded a good number of tomato varieties, complete with descriptions and pictures. She has these each as a separate plant entry. The problem with this is, we end up with 50 "Lycoperison lycopersicon" entries.

We both liked the idea of a main "Tomatos" area, which behaves somewhat like a regular plant entry, but makes finding the cultivar/varieties easier.

Well, we still don't have a full solution, but lots of good ideas.

Dave

Personally, I really don't have an opinion on the current subject. But....where else on the web could you have a good exchange of ideas about how best to implement information to a database? This is the very thing that makes Dave's Garden the best site on the web!

Just my opinion,

Sharon

In my "humble" opinion :-) I think roses should have their own category. Whilst searching for a rose I came across the Tropical hibiscus (rosa-sinensis) and the bulb, Tuberose.

Louisa: Roses do have their own category.

http://davesgarden.com/plants/category/Roses/index.html

:-)

dave

So what is the verdict? I have been holding off on listing any additional roses until I know if I am doing it right or not.

Do we not want to list and show as many different named cultivars as possible? or do we want to just show a few and let them represent the thousands of others?

Zany: I think the verdict is to find the genus/species of the rose that you want to add.

If the genus/species isn't in yet, add it.

Once it's there, add a new section for "Cultivar Name and Description" and enter your cultivar's content there.

Then, if you have pictures, upload the picture to the plant, giving the Cultivar name in the caption field.

Sounds good to everybody? If we follow this format, then we will have a standard way of showcasing cultivars, and we can move things around easier in the future, should we ever decide to segregate certain species into a category all to themselves.

Dave

So all Hybrid Teas should be under a single heading and Floribundas under another and all polyanthus another?

IF I have it right how do I change the entries I already put in seperately to fit into the proper category? If I do not have it right can someone please try to explain it to me one more time? :)

Louisa, you make my point perfectly. There are roses that some regard as perennials, others as shrubs, maybe some as annuals and, if you belive some descriptions, as trees !!
I have just posted Allium to the forum. Most authorities describe it as a perennial herb. It is also a bulb and, in the opinion of some people is also an annual. We need to establish a protocol if the database is to have any value.

El Tel

Oh I wish we could all sit around a table and discuss this - I think it would be a fascinating conversation!

Dave, ditto on your comments to Zany, I think that is the way we should handle it for the time being.

El, I was thinking Louisa's point shows the fallacy of Latin nomenclature (if one can be so bold as to suggest that Latin naming convention has flaws :)

Because of the descriptive words used in Latin (and for that matter, common) names, a search for Rosa will inevitably yield a Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and a Polianthus tuberosa, along with the "true" roses.

If we were to use the Latin families for categories, the family Rosaceae would include fruit trees, Spiraea and Cherry Laurel shrubs, filipendulas, cinquefoils, aruncus, and countless other perennials, and roses.

So I guess it's safe to say there is no "perfect" way to categorize plants. Using Latin names is certainly the most universal way to label each plant, but as far as categories, I'm not convinced that most gardeners are ready to mentally group their plants by Latin families.

I think Dave has created a very flexible database, in that we can search by name (Latin or common, full or partial), by plant characteristics - height, light and water requirements, etc., or by category.

And the categories are far from perfect - Allium is indeed an herb, but the more showy species are wonderful perennials and of course, there's the lowly onion, which most people think of as a vegetable.

What is neat about Dave's database design is that if I choose Allium from the Herb category, and I click on the blue name "Allium" I will see the other species of Allium, regardless of where they reside in the database. I think that feature can really help all of us learn more about the plants we grow, and plants that we may never have considered.

What if it is an annual in one zone/country/area and a perennial in another? Or a houseplant is Michigan and an outdoor perennial in Brazil. Maybe the database should be moderated...What if someone starts posting like mad and never knew what the heck they are doing and screws it all up?

What about synonyms? I’ve run into several plants that have changed botanical names. What would be the best way to list synonyms so they’d come up in a search? The Kiss Me Over The Garden Gate is a good example. It has changed from the polygonum genus to perscaria. I listed it as “Persicaria / syn. Polygonum orientale” . Should the synonym just be added into the description? …. Or should it be placed in a separate entry and maybe just write “see Perscaria orientale” in the description section. It would be nice to be able to find a plant even if you only know the synonym. Some of my books only have the older names.

Sue, that's a good question - let me do some testing on the entries with synonyms and see what happens when I search for them. I'm thinking the way you're doing it is fine, as either name should pick up in a search.

Weebus, I've been watching new entries, making sure they have all the information and are accurately categorized, and are not duplicative. The "annual" issue is one that is common to all plants databases, because some plants are perennials, but are considered annuals by most gardeners. Others are true annuals, completing their lifecycle in one season. If you find any plants listed as annuals that you believe should be changed, please let me know.

One problem listing the synonyms like I did... you can't click the genus to find other species.

Sue, that's true. I was thinking more of the entries where the species has changed or has alternates. But, if the Genus has changed,
1. you can use the search feature to search for plants of the alternate Genus, or
2. you can click on family, then sort by Genus.

Not a perfect solution, but still workable. You know, I give Dave a lot of credit for the flexibility that exists in this database. I've worked with enough applications to know that this one has taken some poundings by us, and I haven't been able to "break" it yet.