Comment The legend should not leave any ambiguity. Watch what is the common name that is synonymous. Change the categorization of the image accordingly. The scope for then applied to the flower. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that the naming (and possibly whether they are the same plant) seems to be unresolved according to [1] and [2]. Until they have resolved the issue the image must be labelled Sempervivum x funckii as this is what the RBGE sign (and database) calls it. The disclosure was related to the fact that this might end up being the same plant as S. funckii/S.funkii so images of these (non of which are photographs of the flower) might be considered as counterarguments. /Lokal_Profil15:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At closer inspection the situation seems to be the following. The name is either S. × funckii or S. funckii the two seem to be used in a mixed manner [3] uses the "×" but in turn links on to a page without it, both names refer to the same plant though. S. funkii is another entry altogether which might or might not be a synonym to the previous one. As a result I've categorised this image with Sempervivum funckii and added a comment in the descriotion that it is sometimes refered to as simply "Sempervivum funckii". As for the scope either name should work but I could change it to "Sempervivum funckii, flower" if only because that page already exists. /Lokal_Profil15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]