Paul's Scarlet

[SK53]

This tree is no longer considered to be a cultivar of Crataegus laevigata, rather it is derived from the hybrid Crataegus x media (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crataegus_laevigata#Cultivars). For this, and similar examples you could introduce taxon for the whole name, species for the species part & taxon:cultivar=Paul's Scarlet.

I'm about to try the preset out, so may then suggest things like this via pull requests.

[Heiner-Sch]

I see some of my mistakes now.

• there is C. Paul’s Scarlet in the preset, but not Punicea and Punicea Flore Pleno
• the cultivar is in species=. Should be in taxon:cultivar=. But this is not only for Crataegus the case, unfortunately.

My English name for C. Paul’s Scarlet is "Red-thorn". Is that right? How would you name C. Punicea and C. Punicea Flore Pleno in English? The additional cultivars doesn't make life easier, specially not for mappers in the field.

I tried to find an additional source for the C. × media, which was not really successful.

It doesen't exsit here: https://powo.science.kew.org/results?q=Crataegus and here: https://www.botanicaplantnursery.co.uk/search/for/Crataegus/

But here: https://plantatlas.brc.ac.uk/plant/crataegus-laevigata and here: https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/30816/i-crataegus-i-times%3B-i-media-i/details

Is it possible, that there are dissusions about this naming ongoing and it's not an accepted name today? Is it a good idea to change the name of species=* before it is accepted everywhere?

[SK53]

A couple of comments POWO often seems quite limited, not sure that it treats of hybrids extensively, but C. x media is there.. The Plant Atlas is 20 years out-of-date taxonomically. A better UK reference would be the Hybrid Atlas (2015ish).

My oldish copy of Rothmaler 4 (2005) includes C x. media with vernacular names of Mittlerer Weissdorn, \bastard-Weissdorn, or Rotdorn ("als Zier-Pfl hierzu Rotdorn mit gefuellten roten B"), so I don't think there's any problem with the name.

Like you I had always assumed this was C. laevigata, but I looked closely at two on my road, and both either had many flowers with a single styles, which suggested to me that the species was incorrect. I then searched and found that others had found the same

I'm not quite sure about the best way to handle multiple cultivars which people may not distinguish between, but separating out species, taxon & cultivar certainly helps. One possibility would be to provide a generic taxon:cultivar=flora pleno cultivars (there are other groups, such as "Lombardy Poplars" and Copper Beeches where there may be several similar cultivars not easily distinguished. Other problematic ones which are pretty common: weeping willows (mainly wrong names I suspect), flowering cherries, variegated Sycamores.

One other thing, when used in Vespucci these could do with icons. A few years ago I created a few SVG files from scanned leaves, some of which have been incorporated onto this page on the wiki. These look to be a format which would work in JOSM and Vespucci if you are interested.

[Heiner-Sch]

Today I made some updates to the preset. I deleted Crataegus laevigata Paul’s Scarlet. Added some Salix, but did't fix the issue with the Salix alba Tristis.

Salix alba Tristis might be a common weeping willow, but it's not the only one. Salix babylonica is not in the preset. Maybe a mistake?

The idea of this preset was a list of the most common trees, to make it easy to add with their trivial names. But I found out very fast, that it might be not really easy. Specially well known trees like weeping willow, where you have multiple botanic names behind are causing issues. The trivial names are not unique, unfortunately.