Thanks Michael.

I do not know from HMF's point of view, but from the point of view of horticulture, legal definitions, botanical definitions, and common definitions are very different worlds. Typically, such as with plant writers, somewhere between horticulture and common (language of a weekend warrior, for example) is what is typically used to convey the persuasion of garden culture. Which is what keeps all of this going. That, and landscape sales. Which is an entirely different language, usually based on wholesale codes and buzzwords.

So I imagine that one would have to weigh out how many public people would use legal plant codes versus how much work it would require to do that.

From my personal point of view, I am happy if a rose matches its concept and IRAR name. In many cases, even that is hard to do. Some do not even get that for years, until someone stumbles upon a discovery or misinformation. I typically do not report wholesale pot culture miniatures or florist roses, because it is mostly a waste of time for the majority of us. But there are at least 200 patents for them that I could have reported to HMF about. Matching florist roses to their appropriate concept is probably one of the most difficult things here. Getting their legal codes properly identified would probably be even harder to do.

Let me comment on the increasing trend by many nurseries to include in the name of the rose a kind of brand family name (to quote some of the more established ones: Generosa, Romantica, Flower Circus, Palace etc.), which the creates very long names in the form of 'Rose Name' ® 'Brand Name' TM. These are a pain to transcribe and I propose that these brand names may have commercial value in wholesale rose sales, but really don't interest most rose fans. There has been such a proliferation of these brands in the last few years, that HMF's software would have to be continually adapted to record these. I am very happy to ignore them totally - they do not add value to the information most users seek on this website.