BMS Sudden Left Turn!

PatArizona

Thank you Anita and Brian (alpha sort...like it?)...for clearing a lot of murky water...

Let's see if I've got it right...

Once I download the database, the data is mine...all mine. I can add/change/delete to my heart's exhaustion...

None of these actions will impact data anywhere but on my own computer...never!

And fernow...as in fernow...no more questions.

It should work for me...

Pat

__________________
BONSAI isn't about surviving in a storm, rather, how to dance in the rain.
THE ONLY WAY: Always remember, and don't ever forget, that whatever you read here is not cast in concrete... the intent of any advice is to help. In no way should you feel that I’m saying that my way is the only way…heaven forbid! I've seen far too much of the "my way or the highway" attitude in bonsai as well as in other areas of life.

Advertisement

BrianP03103

By George, I think he's got it!!!!!!

No Offense Intended, Pat.

__________________

Forest Reef

Hey, Pat - I getta "marblehead" back at Brian. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds amusing.

Oh, Brian - before I get into the meat of the marbling...Congrats on having enough traffic to get software its own forum!

Uhhh...Brian check out my post #107 in the original (now sticky) BMS thread. Pt. 5 in that post was my first request for cultivar/variety. 3wks ago. Post #16, 2wks ago, in the BMS Hierarchy thread. Post #10, 3 days ago, in the New Forms thread - where I (thought) I explicitly said, "Hey, we are going to use the same thing (Tree Type) to represent Genus (1 up from species) and Cultivar/Variety (1 down from species)." [In your parlance - using one thing to represent two different "granularity levels" - one above and one below species.] Not my first choice (biologists would be unhappy), but it would work in the software - at least it would at that version. I've never stopped whining about wanting cultivar/variety differentiation within species.

I would've sworn from the way you talked back at me you knew what I was talking about/referring to when I discussed these. My bad if the botany-speak doesn't communicate like I thought it did....Apparently, it didn't.

[BioEd]
So - biology lesson to avoid future misunderstandings (from a non-biologist - so somebody correct me if I get something too blatantly wrong)...

Example: Acer palmatum 'Kiyohime'
Common name: Japanese Mountain Maple Kiyohime (a dwarf cultivar of Japanese mountain maple)
Genus: Acer
species: palmatum
cultivar: Kiyohime

Cultivar = a subgroup within a species that people came up with (typically through hybridization and other deliberate means) and then selectively propagate because it has some very desirable characteristic. Cultivars do not typically breed true (not genetically 'stable'). If you want another Kiyohime, you typically have to take cuttings or graft it. I have a so-called 'kiyohime' seedling that clearly takes after "the other side of the family" (it's apically (top) dominant).

Variety = subgroup within a species that came up with themselves naturally. That is, naturally occurring sub-populations of a species, often from a particular geographic region, that share some desirable trait, so people collect them and start propagating. Varieties are somewhat more 'genetically stable' - seedlings are more likely to exhibit the desirable characteristics. But, you can be sure by using cuttings or grafts... As I understand it, Shimpaku and Itoigawa junipers are both varieties of J. chinensis.
[/BioEd]

From a "consumer's" viewpoint, there's not that much difference whether it's a cultivar or variety. It only matters if you want to propagate it; Oh, and don't let suckers grow from below any grafts. From the BMS viewpoint - you can treat them the same (IMO).

Let's review why we might want to differentiate/search/sort on each level:
1) Genus - an example like Fagus (beech) - several different species, these trees (all the species) have a specialized pruning technique that is significantly different from what most people are used to doing for deciduous trees. All the species of some genra can be treated pretty much the same.

2) Species - white pines, black pines, mugo pines - all are species from Genus Pinus, but all these species have different training techniques. They cannot be treated the same.

3) Cultivar/Variety - (a) some need a pruning technique significantly different from the one used for 'normal' of that species. Like the Kiyohime and other dwarf Japanese Maples - did you notice Harry Harrington and I both used the same example (Kiyohimes and their basal (bottom) dominance requiring a different pruning technique - protect that apex!)?
(b) Value - I've read some articles recently about a variety of Japanese beech found in the vicinity of Mt Fujii, appropriately enough called Fagus crenata 'Fujii', that has particularly small leaves (even for an F. crenata). I've not seen these - only read about them. But, if true, then I (and other bonsaiists) might be willing to pay more for that particular variety. So, a bonsaiist might want to keep track of (record) a more valuable specimen.
(c) Certain common bonsai plants have literally hundreds (possibly thousands - not exaggerating here) of cultivars and/or varieties. "Japanese Maple" really doesn't begin to tell the story. WHICH Japanese Maple? Japanese Maples (A. palmatum), Satsuki Azaleas (R. indicum and hybrids), and Chinese junipers (J. chinensis) are three such species. As a matter of handling the data efficiently...well, I have probably 20 A. palmatums - but only two 'Butterfly' cultivars. I only have one real Kiyohime. It's much more efficient if I can pull up just the one or two I want, and not have to page thru 20 or more records for every A. palmatum....

Are we clear on where cultivar/variety stand wrt species?

Final question - show stopper? No, I suppose not. Not if I can enter my own "Tree...." If you read some of Mr. Harrington's entries - he lists them all as "Species Guide" entries. But - he often uses Genus and includes several species (see the Fagus or Cedrus entries). Other times his entries are at the Species level (three different entries for Acers - A. buerganium, A. campestre, and A. palmatum). He does discuss cultivar/variety differences (see the Acer palmatum entry), but none of these stand as a separate entry. But then, he's not trying to manage/keep track of a specific set of trees. (A guide doesn't necessarily have the same requirements/setup as a BMS).

I will set up my system so I can sort down to the cultivar level where it counts to me, one way or another. If I have to make separte entries for "Acer palmatum", "Acer palmatum Kiyohime", etc., I guess I will (that is, put cultivar info in at the species level). That probably means a lot of "Acer" info is going to get stored multiple times. Not the best way....

Another option for ver1.0 - store the 'special A. palmatum Kiyohime' pruning technique text with the other A. palmatum info, but allow me to selectively / quickly pull up their individual specimen records....Sorting is more an issue for me (now that I know I can add info as I like into TreeSpecies entries). Could we have a fairly simple text box type thing in the specimen for cultivar/variety? The function of the box in ver1.0 would be strictly sorting. Let's see how that works. (I'm thinking this is pretty simple - correct me if I'm wrong.)
[BioEd]Be aware some cultivar names are used again in different species. (There's an Arakawa (or something like that) black pine AND maple.)
[/BioEd]
Thus, the sort needs to be on [Species]+[Cultivar/Variety] together. (Edit: allow [Cultivar/Variety] to be blank - lots of trees are going to be the generic species.)

Enough for now....

__________________
Anita

Nature, time, and patience are the three great physicians.

rowan57

The best way to do this would be to use one table to store Genus and Species information (Leaving the more detailed information required optional. Then create another table and sub-form to store Cultivar/Variety information, where the more detailed information is required, then create a relationship between the two, allowing the data to be searched, minimising repeated data which will clog up a database, as Genus/Species info would only have to be entered once (+ Cultivar/Variety info will only have to be entered when required)
I hope this is clear, its early and i have to go to work, if its not i will try and make more sense of it when i get back tonight.
Cheers
Rowan

__________________
In literary and art criticism there are two criteria, the political and the artistic....

Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people of our various nationalities

I often talk to myself because i am the only one who truly understands me.

PatArizona

G'day Brian...

What Anita said about "...wanting cultivar/variety differentiation within species..." goes for me, also.

The FAMILY, Genus, Species, subspecies, variety (form), cultivar...structure should be available. Then, of course, the Common Name.

Pat

...aka Marblehead, for whom the dawn lighted - not yet Marbleheaded...well, maybe a little.

__________________
BONSAI isn't about surviving in a storm, rather, how to dance in the rain.
THE ONLY WAY: Always remember, and don't ever forget, that whatever you read here is not cast in concrete... the intent of any advice is to help. In no way should you feel that I’m saying that my way is the only way…heaven forbid! I've seen far too much of the "my way or the highway" attitude in bonsai as well as in other areas of life.

BrianP03103

Actually, I am guilty of using a regionalism. Marblehead, MA is about the easternmost point of Massachusetts (if you don't include Cape Cod). It is a very old fishing port (similar to Gloucester).

However, most germain to my comment is the fact that the cliffs are composes significantly of marble and granite. Also, that it is one of the first places in the US where you can see the sun come up.

Ergo, when a subject first becomes illuminated for someone, light has "dawned" on "Marble-head".

__________________

BrianP03103

Rowan,

OMG! Someone else who understand relational database structure! How wonderful! The opportunity for peer review! Would you mind taking the time to review my relationship diagram (after I make the Cultivar changes)?

__________________

BrianP03103

See Reply # . Yup, I was a Marble-head.

Thanks, Anita.




Sorry, I missed it, not understanding your terminology. Now you know how I feel when others don't get it (and don't know it) because I fell into techie-speak. [img]images/btsmilies/wink.gif[/img]


Painfully. Sigh. This is truly a genuine need. I will need to stop and rethink. My first inclination is to duplicate the structure of the Tree Species table as the Tree Cultivar table. That way, information true for a species regardless of possible Cultivars. Then, information particular to a Cultivar could be entered in the specific Cultivar table record.

BTW, I do not ass|u|me that all species have one or more Cultivars. Is that true? Should at least one Cultivar record be expected for each Specie record?

Yeah, but if you entered a Specie entry for each Cultivar, you would probably be entering Specie-specific (as opposed to Cultivar-specific) over and over again for each Cultivar. From your perspective, this is a lot of undesirable, duplicative work. From the database's perspective, it is needlessly storing a lot of duplicative data. Both are evil.

__________________

BrianP03103

This is for Rowan's review. The rest of you, please ignore it (I know it's very techie).

BTW, Rowan, if this pix is not clear enough, let me know. I can email you a better copy, but I'm limited by file size here.

Attached Images

Relationships.jpg (69.2 KB, 7 views)

__________________