It appears that the author of the 4th edition of Japanese Maples The Complete Guide has made a significant attempt to clean up the name of the cultivars that are commonly in used; e.g. 'Aka shigitatsu saw'a is referred to as 'Beni shigitatsu sawa', and 'Chishio Improved' is referred to as 'Shin chichio' etc. To avoid increasing confusion over time in using the valuable Japanese maple photo database of this forum, I am wondering whether it is worthwhile to have each photo thread accessed by their latest name, and the old name should still have a thread that simply redirect the viewers to the thread with the 'proper' name (perhaps with a reference to the source of the change). Just a thought.
Good idea, I've already been trying to clean up some of the names in the photo galleries and wondered what best to do with 'Chishio improved'; a permanent redirect to 'Shin chishio' looks like a good option. No time to make the changes now, but I will look into it in the next few days. Also: The entry for 'Wabito' in the photo gallery has already been changed to 'Wabi bito' in line with the latest transliteration, for example.
So is there a list somewhere of previously used names and their current iterations without buying the new book?
The world checklist also lists "Chishio Improved" as illegitimate (mix of languages not allowed) and as being replaced by Shin chishio. Aka shigitatsu sawa is also replaced by Beni shigitatsu sawa. Since PG also collaborated on the checklist I presume the changes are consistent between the two documents. -E
What should we do about the cultivars that are (probably) incorrectly lumped together by these authors? I see some improvements made here and there with the 4th edition, but I'm not ready to pass it on as the final word. I think it is important that we have to be careful not to change the names of our maples without knowing for sure that there weren't two different maples with similar names to begin with. I'm sitting on 3 (possibly 4) forms of Osakazuki because this name lumping and changing thing was done in the past. Now who the heck knows which is which? Its a good thing Jim is still around or we would be really lost (more so than we are). I am glad to see that the Red Select/Inaba shidare issue has been addressed somewhat in the 4th ed. I'm afraid the damage is done on this one though. I have not seen a real Inaba shidare come in from Oregon in 3 years at the nursery. I've seen Red Select sold as Inaba shidare and Inaba shidare/Red Select. I've seen what I think is Oregon Garnet sold as Inaba shidare. One paragraph in a book has essentially ruined two of the best red dissectums we have available; so I would prefer to play it safe when possible.
I think we should just go to a numbering system. Each plant would get a master index number, and then any number of names could be associated with that index number. You would always know what it was by referencing back to the index, no matter how many names it had acquired.
K4, your computer background is showing! I like it. How would numbers be assigned? By theorized date of origination?
I would have a country of origin prefix, the number, then an alpha code at the end indicating sub-species. Something like: 01-123456-p
There is a group within the Maple Society that got together at the Portland meeting to look at ways to address this issue. This is a very large undertaking and I am not sure if progress has been made. I am aware of two name problems in the fourth addition of Japanese Maples. On page 354 they list ‘Hupp’s Red Willow’ as an introduction from Red Maple Nurseries. They indicate that this is often misspelled as ‘Hubb’s Red Willow’. My tree came directly from Richard Wolff and it was tagged Hubbs Red Willow. In his cultivar list from 1993-1994 he list this cultivar as plant 361 originally listed as Un-named seedling and then hand written by Mr Wolff as Hubbs red willow. I would guess that since he is the person that introduced the plant his name Hubbs would be the correct name. On page 360 (index list 260) they list ‘Rilas Red’ as a cultivar. This cultivar is actually ‘Red Feather’ introduced by John Vermeulen and Sons nursery in 1995. The cultivar was discovered in 1980 as a seedling of the original mother plant of ‘Burgundy Lace’ that they introduced in 1945. The cultivar was discovered by Ronald Byleckie a manager at the nursery. A tag was placed on the plant as Rilas Red while it was being evaluated by the nursery. If I remember correctly Rila was Ron’s daughters name. I was given a few of these to evaluate by Nancy Vermeulen in the early 90s and I was told that the name of the cultivar was not yet determined. Later I was told that the name Red Feather was selected. Anyone that may have visited the nursery and maybe clipped a few pieces of scion wood would have probably marked them Rilas Red. Last year at my spring maple gathering Nancy Vermeulen noticed a small graft that I had tagged Rilas Red someone sent to me and she told me the story about the name. She was completely unaware that any of these had ever left the nursery with that name.
I will try to keep the names of the cultivars in the Acer palmatum gallery organised according to the best information available. "Japanese Maples" 4th edition will serve as the basis but where there is newer or more accurate information available, such as that provided by NJACER above, I will use this instead. Regarding the names that have possibly been incorrectly lumped together, this is probably the most difficult situation to deal with as there does not seem to be a clear consensus here. Luckily there is a separate gallery thread for 'Red Select', for example, that contains some good information on the history of this cultivar, and in a case like this there is no need to merge that thread with any different named cultivar.
That would be a great idea, but the names of maples, especially some of the newer ones, are often times critical in generating "buzz" about the cultivar. Names like Geisha Gone Wild and Tiger Rose will attract alot more buyers than 01876. Even Latin and Japanese names hold alot of appeal in their "authenticity". It's sad, but marketing is huge, and many people buy trees based on a cool name (sorta like novice wine buyers.)
Sasquatch, I agree with the importance of naming. I'm not saying we should name the plants with numbers, but assign a number in addition to the name. The advantages of this are huge. For example, a plant in Japan could have a name that Japanese speaking people relate to, and it could directly relate to the same plant in the US with a different English name.
