There is definitely some taxonomical confusion that makes the database
harder to use. For example, pages for both Belamcanda chinensis and
Iris domestica exist with different info in each, as well as seperate
entries for Pardanthopsis dichotoma / Iris dichotoma and xPardancanda
norrisii / Iris x norrisii. It might help to consolidate the info and
automatically redirect the pages with older nomenclature to their
corresponding entries. If older synonyms should be removed from the
main page completely, it would possibly help to actually state that if
you don't see the species you're looking for, type it into the search
box to see if it's already in the database under a synonym. I know
this is obvious to some people, but it might not be to others. As to
how to decide what names to use for species entries when there's
debate over the taxonomy, *clearly* a duel to the death is the only
honorable resolution.
It would be nice if any user could actually correct obvious errors
(like typos) rather than just adding more info to refute them. For
example, there are a few misplaced photos (i.e. Iris lutescens photo
#9) where users would benefit from the photo actually being relocated
rather than just having its identity corrected in the comments. I
assume the database doesn't work this way because true wikis are
higher maintenance and just beg for vandalism.
On a somewhat related note, does anyone still grow the spectacular
white Pardanthopsis pictured in the database (under Iris dichotoma, of
course)?
Sean Zera
Quoting David Ehrlich <idavide@sbcglobal.net>:
> I was recently looking over the Iris Species Database on the site
> and was surprised at the lack of precision in names. Here are some
> errors I found:
> 1. You have Dietes grandiflora, D iridoides and D.vegata all
> listed. Whether Dietes grandiflora and D. iridoides are reduced to
> synonyms or kept distinct, D. vegata is no longer an allowable name.
> 2. You list Hesperoxiphion peruvianum under the name Cypella
> peruviana. Well, that’s the old name, and you should use the
> currently accepted name. Far worse, the photo you include with it
> is that of H. herrerae, and that should certainly be corrected.
> 3. Your listing for Neomarica gracilis has a photo of N. candida or
> N. northiana. Well, the flowers are practically impossible to tell
> apart in the photos. But N. gracilis is very different in form,
> having a gracile inflorescence; the other two do not. Both the
> flower pedicel and the peduncle of N. gracilis are long and slender;
> much much longer than the bracts from which they emanate. That’s
> not the case in the plant photographed
> I guess I feel it's important to properly and correctly identify
> plants when you can.
>
> David Ehrlich
