The archive has taken in a body of records that had been kept aside for years: names of olive cultivars that appear in the scientific literature but have never been matched to a known cultivar. They are 2,337, and they come with their diffusion records, their bibliographic parameters and their collection references — about 4,800 pieces of information in all.

They are marked with a question mark next to the name, and their page says so in plain words. The mark is not decoration: it means that the name is documented in a paper, and nothing more. It is not a claim that the cultivar exists as a distinct variety, nor that it is different from one already in the archive. Where a source suggested a possible correspondence, that suggestion is recorded in the notes of the single record, together with the paper that proposed it — because it is the opinion of one author, not a fact of the archive.

Sixty-four records turned out to belong to cultivars already known under the same name. Those were attached to the existing cultivar rather than duplicated, and carry a note saying the attribution is uncertain.

Keeping this material out would have been simpler. It is here because a name that a researcher can find in a paper, and then not find here, is a gap in the archive; a name that is here and openly marked as unverified is not.