It's important to remember that all of these fanciful "names" are actually trade designations, and not names at all--in fact, the ARS does itself a great disservice as ICRA for the genus by referring to exhibition "names" when those approved "names" are frequently trade designations instead. These are not to be regarded as, or confused with, cultivar epithets under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, which the ARS is obliged to follow as ICRA. Known trade designations should also always be displayed along with the cultivar epithet.

It would be far better for the ARS to fulfill its obligations under the ICNCP by better and more consistently emphasizing that there is only one accepted name for each cultivar, consisting of a true cultivar epithet, which is to be indicated by enclosure within single quotation marks. Likewise, trade designations should ideally be displayed in different typeface or otherwise set apart from the cultivar epithet, and must never be enclosed in single quotation marks. For this cultivar, 'Delanac' is the correct name. The others are technically meaningless proprietary trade designations that may be employed freely only in a non-commercial context as a matter of "fair use." Proprietary trade designations are bereft of any true connection to the actual cultivar; the owner of such a designation may apply it to as many different varieties as desired, to change the designation or designations that it uses for a cultivar however it sees fit, and of course, there is no limit to the number of trade designations that a single cultivar may be sold under.