In article , Tom Bennett
writes
"Rachel Sullivan" wrote
snip
I see to my dismay that Etoile Rose has now been reclassified out of
texensis and into viticella. So has 'Pagoda'. Campaniflora is now
listed in Victoria Matthews' 'Clematis Register and Checklist' as
viticella subsp. campaniflora, and what I used to call campaniflora
'Lisboa' is now viticella 'Lisboa'. And there's lots more.

Hmmm......... I'd go along with 'Pagoda' being reclassified into the
viticellas but I think 'Etoile Rose' is very much borderline and I can't
imagine how C. campaniflora could be a subsp. of viticella. Still, what's
in a name?

'Etoile Rose' is a confusing issue for customers as well, because
although the Register says 'from time to time it has been put into
texensis group' I've never seen it in any other place. Even the colour
labels say 'texensis', though admittedly that's nothing to go by - some
of the inaccuracy of colour could get us under the trades descriptions
act.

Some distinctions make it easier to list plants (like anything with
integrifolia in its parentage and is herbaceous enough goes into the
Integrifolia Group) but other things, like the campaniflora/texensis/
viticella issue doesn't particularly help customers and doesn't have a
lot of logic for the nurseryman either. I could put triternata
rubramarginata in the viticella group for instance, one of its parents
being a viticella ... this is making my brain hurt.

The more I look into this new classification thing, the more inclined I
am to use the categories that look like common sense - and ignore the
rest.

--
Rachel