I'm on board naming them correctly as well Dave and while it seems a bit like fighting a rising tide that is the American Ignorance department, it's the proper and correct thing to do. I would be alarmed to find 'Catharine's Golden Heart' circulating around Europe or elsewhere with a translated name 'Catrine's Ugenbaucher Schruellen', etc. so I completely understand why a grower or namer of a plant abroad is frustrated when they see their plants misnamed or outright ignored/renamed for English/Americanizing purposes.

Sometimes it seems to be done to avoid patent rights, which is gross and highly unethical, others it's probably because the nurseries think plants named 'Silver Ball' have a better chance to sell then German names of the same meaning. They may be right, but, like my practices used by the nursery industry to make more money at the expense of their clients, it's highly unethical.

I don't change my signs every time I see a change or correction posted here by Edwin or others but I *do* plan on it someday and always make changes to my photo/database.

Unfortunately this comes down to pride/ethics over greed and that has almost never won out over the course of capitalism or modern economics. We can do our part, as Edwin lobbies, to correctly list plants and educate others(I myself make corrections at nurseries), but ultimately like so many problems on earth right now, we're going against a very strong grain.

I value VERY much Edwin's/Clement's/Stephens/Bobs/Gee's/etc. corrections and backrounds to names and will always be interested in making changes, learning more about the history of the plants and honoring them with correct spelling and identifications.

My one and a half cents,
-Will

Dropping it in the donation bucket. (just seemed like the thing to write).

Dax

i used to say.. a $100 hosta.. w/o a label.. is a $5 hosta ... and you cant go renaming hosta ... on a whim ...

if you have a VERY distinctive plant.. that everyone recognizes from a distance.. we call it the 10 foot rule in the hosta world ... then there is little or no doubt what it is ... [and there are a lot of conifers which fit into this category .. say green arrow, e.g.]

but when you have 400 green hosta in a certain size.. all reg'd and named.. the odds of ID'ing it.. IMHO.. are low to nil ...

right now.. in my garden i have the following pungens: hoopsi.. thomsen and Otto v. B ... and i find it amusing that 99.9% of us.. could ID them independently.. and individually ...

and for someone to suggest a new name for a given plant in your garden .. and you change that name.. and then send out scion.. will only result in further dissolution of naming standards ...

it would be my position .. that the plant is the plant that you bought it labeled under .. and if that label is wrong.. so be it ... [and this side steps the nomenclature changing of latin names to cultivar names]

if you want the right plant .. under the right name.. then go buy it under such .. and you are all set ... but to go changing stock names.. is VERY troublesome ...

and of course.. this has nothing to do with spelling or nomenclature changes ... thunberg was quite a plantsman/discoverer ... and the latinization of that.. has nothing to do.. in my world with 'cultivar' names ....

it has to do with tracing the heritage of a specific named plant ... if there is a history.. and that history can be tracked [and i will say affirmatively Joy is REALLY REALLY good at this] .. then there is a basis for change ... but without it.. frankly.. you are basically throwing all the nomenclature standards.. right out the window ....

should we change sharp chedder to walnut glen.. which used to be Goldie .. because the pix look the same ???? [not that they do.. its an example]

another example.. i have a pungens in the yard ... named 'Stupka's walnut glen' ... he was quite a knowledgeable guy.. and apparently.. he made a selection that he thought was 'better' or different than WG .... is it walnut glen??? is it significantly different than WG??? will it be so in 20 years??? can someone off site tell me any of the above ..???? .. i would submit.. only if they talk with and document stupka's thoughts on the matter ...

another example .. can i change the name of my mercury grand marquis to a Ford crown vic... because they are essentially the same car.. under two different corporate entities???? i think not ...

as devils advocate [key words there].. it would be my position that you can NOT change the name of a plant ... [as i said.. you can go buy it properly labeled...but you cant change yours] .. w/o substantial documentation ... and right now.. all i see is 'he said; she said'

it was said.. in the hosta world.. that all this would be fixed.. if only everything was registered .. and you know what.. that only started a bigger nightmare.. lol ...

ken

ps: and Will, i take great umbrage in your overly broad generalization that follows; as i am not ignorant, nor a lemming in the sense if being dictated to as to what is proper and correct [i have no problem with your opinion.. but i dont appreciate the implication that it is the ONLY proper and correct thing to do]:

while it seems a bit like fighting a rising tide that is the American Ignorance department, it's the proper and correct thing to do.

Here is a link that might be useful: thunberg

Hey Ken,

What I think you said: When I say No cups are made of lead, cups supposits for all the cups that exist. But if I say Some cups were made of lead in Roman times, cups cannot just be suppositing for all the cups that exist, but for cups in the past as well. Here I am expanding the normal supposition of the terms I use. Peter of Spain says "Ampliation is the extension of a common term from a lesser supposition to a greater one." In practice, if I speak of the past, or the future, or make a modal claim, the terms I use get ampliated to supposit for past things, future things, or possible things, rather than their usual supposition for present actual things. Thus, ampliation becomes the medieval theory for explaining modal and tense logics within the theory of supposition.

Dave