Yes, it would not be the same as 'Cristata'. 'Sekkan' is just 'Sekkan-sugi' with the second term removed due to it thought being redundant, sugi in this instance meaning cryptomeria.

Thanks for the info. I suppose the same should be applied to the various other Cryptomerias whose names end with 'sugi'.

I would like to bump this one forward and reopen the discussion. There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether the RHS Encyclopedia and the RHS Horticultural Database (see link) should be trusted as unquestionable resources when both are full of errors and inconsistancies.

Is there anyone out there who knows how the individual entries are being created and if there's an efficient way to correct the record if something is clearly wrong?

My gut feeling is that the RHS Horticultural Database is trying to document all plants of all kinds in the world and that this is simply too big of a task to be accomplished accurately and efficiently.

Here is a link that might be useful: RHS Horticultural Database

When you get into trouble is when you try to make a single treatment the be all and end all, like people lacking a complete familiarity are always trying to do with the Dirr manual. As with all other information you have to compare accounts, study the arguments/evidence presented and then form your own conclusions.

By the way, one thing I didn't think of earlier is that a synonym of Cryptomeria japonica 'Cristata' is C. japonica 'Sekka-sugi' - creating an obvious basis for confusion with C. japonica 'Sekkan-sugi'.

"As with all other information you have to compare accounts, study the arguments/evidence presented and then form your own conclusions."

Thank you, Ron. I could not agree more with this statement. I wish more people would adopt this sort of academic rigor.

~Dave

One name that is very confusing to me is 'Xanthocyparis' in the RHS. From reading around on the internet, it appears the latest info may lean towards the original 'Cupressus' (before Chamaecyparis), but nothing conclusive.

Agree with Cupressus nootkatensis being the best scientific evidence name for Nootka Cypress. The use of Xanthocyparis just shows the influence that Farjon (who described that name and is its primary proponent) has on the RHS list. That influence too probably means that many good species will be dismissed as varieties or even omitted outright, such as Pinus chiapensis, Pinus johannis, Picea martinezii, Cupressus glabra, etc., etc.

Resin

Can't speak for species, but you can take with a pinch of salt a lot of the info regarding the cultivar section, far too many errors for my liking, although the photos are very good indeed

The saga actually continues. One of my colleagues researched the rules of nomenclature and found a very interesting rule that I want you guys to be aware of and offer opinion.

Seems that 5th International Symposium on the Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants was held at Wageningen, The Netherlands in 2007. After that meeting, the ICNCP (International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants), 8th Edition, 2009, was published by the ISHS (International Society for Horticultural Science), Chairman Christopher Brickell. This is the document that contains the rules for naming cultivars. This is a quote from that document that pertains to cultivar names and when and if they can be changed:

"The original registered cultivar name should stand. An originator, the person who submits a cultivar name to be registered, does not have a right to change the name after it is accepted. I suppose you can plead a case with the registrar for âÂÂcorrectingâ a name after acceptance, but the authority to make changes to an accepted cultivar name does not belong to the originator."

We were discussing the correct name for Abies koreana 'Kohouts Icebreaker.' By the way, this is the way the originator, Jörg Kohout wants it. We even have a message from him that says so. However because it was originally registered with the Royal Horticultural Society, Wesley, England as Abies koreana 'Ice Breaker,' that is the name it must hold through all of eternity despite the wishes of the originator.

rant on . . .
Thoughts? Personally I think this is a special flavor of bureaucratic obstuctionism. The next time one of these symposia is held, I hope somebody with common sense is in attendance.
rant off . . .

~Dave