I'll push the difficulty of fig identity and potential cultivar "synonyms" a little bit by way of an example that particularly interests me because I am particularly interested in these following types of figs (among plenty of others), due to their reputedly being relatively cold hardy and early ripening. The example involves some, not all, of the cultivars often thought of (at least in some fig forums) as Mount Etna type figs. The example consists of the following questions:
1) Is the Takoma Violet cultivar the same as Dark Portuguese?
2) Is Marseilles Black VS cultivar the same as Sal's GS/EL?
3) Is Keddie cultivar the same as Gino's?
4) Are any of these cultivars the same as Hardy Chicago?
5) Are these all Mount Etna figs (figs "originating" on Mount Etna)?
6) If the answer to 5) can be shown/proven to be No, are these even all Mount Etna type figs?
I have my opinions about all six of these questions, but all of my opinions (answers) are tentative. Granted some of my opinions/answers are scarcely tentative. That is, I have a strong opinion/answer of Yes or No. However, some of my opinions/answers are extremely tentative, meaning, I don't remotely know, can't say, even while others may be absolutely certain about their conclusions. Scientists are not running experiments to answer these questions, and comparative fig growing has produced opinions that either trend one way or another, sometimes varying immensely, contradictions abounding. In fact, some of these questions I've never seen considered at all, or have very rarely seen considered, but can you guess which ones? Given the available information (also my own experiences) it seems to me that some such questions could well be asked, with good reason.
So I mention above a mere 7 cultivars. How to chart them? That is, how to chart them accurately? No one really knows. Maybe, to be most simple, the best one could do would be to list these 7, along with quite a few others, next to a notation that goes something like the following:
These cultivars appear to be Mount Etna type cultivars. Some of these cultivars may be identical or virtually identical to one another but the vast majority appear to be relatively distinct from one another, and not infrequently significantly distinct.
And what about Hardy Hartford? What about Hardy Cleveland? What about Abruzzi? What about Salem Dark and Black Bethlehem? etc What about the new unknowns constantly being discovered and assigned new names, or, more problematically, assigned known names incorrectly unwittingly? Any "chart" should come with a lot of qualifications and cautions given the reality of naming.
One could call the Mount Etna statement a charting I suppose but it seems to me that it would more reasonably be called one in a series of notes made about certain cultivars and groups of cultivars, such as one might find in an article, articles, or in an ever-developing wiki. Or in an annotated list of lists.
One more, shorter, example:
If I recall correctly, it has been mentioned in the forums that Palermo Red and Sal's Corleone and Aldo (among other names) might all be either the exact same cultivar or at least seem very similar to one another. I find this interesting because I happen to have Sal's Corleone and Aldo (both acquired this past year). They seem very similar, they seem like they could be identical, and at this point, I would guess that they are, but it would only be an educated guess. No scientific test has been done. Nor is one likely to be done. Moreover, the leaves of one seem somewhat more healthy than the leaves of the other -- somewhat differently shaped therefore? If they are the same cultivar, does one cultivar have a different level of FMV infection than the other making them perform like different cultivars? Or is it simply a current potting soil difference issue? Or, again, are they actually not the same cultivar? Scientists are unlikely to test these cultivars comparatively. Best knowledge is going to have to come from the community of growers. Such knowledge, though best knowledge, will probably bounce around more than a little, which can wreak havoc with a chart.
Take Magnolia and Brunswick. Said by some to be identical cultivars. Said by others to be very similar but with some differences, one possibly a sport of the other. I happen to have these two varieties as well. They seem noticeably different one from the other but also near enough that it's possible that as they mature they may appear ever more identical. Or not. If I had to keep one of the two right now, they are different enough, at least currently, that I know which one I prefer. Whereas, if I had to choose between my several Marseilles Black VS plants, it wouldn't matter because they all seem the same to me. They are in different sized pots and so on, but seem to be performing like a single cultivar, as one would expect. Why shouldn't my Brunswick and Magnolia be indistinguishable like my Marseilles Blacks, if the Brunswick and Magnolia are truly the same cultivar? They don't appear to be. But they might be, I suppose, as is sometimes claimed with reasonable persuasion. Where are the scientific tests, the conclusive scientific tests on those two? How will you chart them, without some significant notations? How is your chart not going to be hundreds or a thousand entries long (like the F4F Varieties database) and still be comprehensive and detailed enough to be meaningful? Wouldn't an annotated lists of lists be more detailed, clear, and simple - absent a wiki?
These are rhetorical questions (to me, despite any practical applications) and not very perplexing ones in my view, since they all seem to point to the difficulty of charting in a "spread sheet" as opposed to other more viable methods for reckoning with fig identity.
I do think a comprehensive "chart" could be done, but I think it would need be a rather involved chart, possibly not much dissimilar to the F4F Varieties database, updated, corrected where necessary, and with more qualifications, explanations, and other data mixed in. That seems a lot like reinventing the wheel, and very difficult.
While a "spread sheet" format seems to imply little room for badly needed qualifications and explanations, and so might wind up destroying more meaning than it creates, simple can work, to an extent. I put forth the very basic Ad Infinitum list and the Mount Etna category listing above. Any number of such "quite-similar" lists and groupings could prove useful to inexperienced figs growers especially. A very basic and straightforward presentation that is more expounded (in annotated list form) than atomized (in spread sheet form) could provide a lot of needed flexibility for conveying meaning. Detailed annotations would be needed to adequately contextualize, qualify and explain, the lists, and should be used.
"Spread sheet" format - at least as it has been discussed thus far - would seem to imply a precision that doesn't exist, and would seem to distort the information by truncated and fragmented display.
But these latter questions are merely of format. Surely there can exist a number of useful formats for sorting through fig identity. The F4F Varieties database and F4F Forum are two such very useful formats, currently existing. A wiki would be another, and seems to me the most adaptable, flexible, accurate mode, and the only format that could potentially approach comprehensive. An annotated list of lists is another basic format that I think would be highly useful for simplicity's sake. And surely charts as spread sheets could convey useful information, though risking simplistic and fragmented and thus false representations, due to space and flexibility limitations. Keeping things "simple" is challenging in any of these formats for even modest tasks, let alone for creating a comprehensive/"complete" listing attempting to sort out all of the individual fig cultivar identities one from another...especially given the lack of definitive data, the conflicting data, the often changing data, that exists for so many cultivars in, say, North America, let alone beyond. Whether or not crucial fig ID qualifications and contexts could be shoehorned into a spreadsheet format should be a main concern.
Impressive would be a spreadsheet that could even well sort out and array, say, the conflicting data about the Kadota figs, or what are thought might or might not be Kadota figs -- or a chart about, say, the Mount Etna figs and those thought to be or not to be Mount Etna figs -- let alone any great chart vastly comprehensive/"complete." Again, annotated lists would seem more practical than spreadsheets. Maybe a spreadsheet could be drawn up to chart such annotated lists. That is, a catalog.
Even if well drawn up, such charts or lists - or a catalog - would need periodic updating, at the least.