I recently came across a comment in the horticultural community from a gentleman who claimed to have discovered a cultivar of a tropical plant and named it after his wife. What caught my attention was that I had just read an article in a horticultural society newsletter discussing the very same cultivar—yet it presented a different origin story, including a different namesake.
The article was detailed and appeared well-researched, but notably, it didn’t include any references or sources. In fact, neither the commenter nor the article offered any solid evidence—aside from the commenter suggesting, “You can contact this nursery I used to work for; they’ll confirm my story.”
So, I did. I reached out to both the nursery and the article’s author, asking for clarification on the conflicting accounts. So far, I haven’t received a response from either party.
Ordinarily, I might not be overly concerned. But this particular plant is a widely sold and highly recognisable cultivar, so the stakes of misinformation are higher. Both the commenter and the article’s author are respected voices in the horticultural community, which makes the situation even more troubling. To me, it feels like a serious misstep when individuals—especially those seen as authorities—make unverified claims about plant origins and are unwilling or unable to substantiate them.
I’m keeping the specific plant variety deliberately vague, so as not to stoke the flames of what already feels like a smouldering dumpster fire.
The takeaway? In the vast, story-rich world of horticulture, the only truly reliable information comes from direct experience or from accounts that can be corroborated with primary and secondary sources. Anecdotes may be colourful, but accuracy still matters.
Zacaconia Tropical Gardens 