I agree that it is troublesome to have varieties, such as 'Slater's Crimson China' "lumped in" with the species names. Yes, we can say that Slater's is a variety of R. chinensis, Semperflorens, etc., but in order for these to be synonymous, every example of R. chinensis would then need to be the same as 'Slater's'. Such is not the case.

There is a mingling of species and varietal names attached to this record that does make it look a bit like an All-things-China dumping ground. I think this record would be more useful and less confusing if the names were sorted out with more discrimination; I do think that some- such as 'Slater's'/ "Belfield" and 'Bengale pourpre semi-double' (hidden name)- need their own records. Sub-categories of R. indica such as diversifolia might warrant separate records as well?

Virginia