erroneous image captions

[RockWoll]

While working through backissues to log the whereabouts of Primula images, volume 141 I came upon 38-39, where I have serious doubts about the names. P. 38 lists P. vulgaris (I suspect a P. elatior cultivar), and on p. 39 P. auricula (absolutely not, possible P. x pubescens cultivar), and P. elatior (a cultivar, not the species!). I could not find corrections to these captions. Have corrections been posted, and if so, does anyone have the correct ones?
I hope that someone knows the answers.
Regards,

[Maggi Young]

I suspect that the species names were used because the plants are all hybrids and their parentage would be too complicated for "simple" photo captions. Perhaps those were the names given on the photo files.   As far as  I know, no corrections have been made.

[MarcR]

Rock Wool,

From the perspective of a Botanist, I don't doubt that you are correct.

From the perspective of a club trying to foster horticultural interest,
using nomenclature that is used by nurseries & known in the trade; is often of more value than being correct.

Perspective is important in other situations, as well.  To a dietician, a tomato is a vegetable; while from the perspective of Biology [including horticulture] it is a fruit.
To a dietician a Blackberry is a berry, but we know it as a composite drupe.