>The correct spelling is:
>"_Drosera_intermedia_", and NOTHING ELSE (at least at present).
>If you want to distinguish any different clones (i.e. differing
>from "typical" _D.intermedia_), you have to *publish* the names
>previous to usage.
Jan:
Allow me to rant and rave...
This is the place where you and I differ. The botanical rules are arranged
to give appropriate notice to those plants which are of taxonomic
significance, so consistency is maintained by researchers and enthusiasts
alike. But the key phrase here is *taxonomic significance*. Many plants
are interesting, even though they are not botanically significant. And
it is unrealistic to think that amateurs will not note these qualities
of their own plants. So what should the CPer do with a favourite _S.flava_
with attractive veining, or a copper lid, or overall red colour? I know
that the beautifully-veined and all-red _S.flava_ plants have been described
as _S.flava var. ornata_ and _S.flava var. atropurpurea_, respectively, but
in the field I've seen a plant intermediate to these two plants. Clearly
this colour variant isn't of true taxonomic significance, so shouldn't be
described botanically. There is the cultivar status, in which outstanding
plants can be described in the official manner (the I.C.P.S. newsletter
C.P.N. is an official place for CPs). But there are as many variations of
_S.flava_ alone as there are photons in the EM Spectrum, so naming *every*
plant as a cultivar is also pointless---especially since there is a
continuum of gradations between the various forms. In some horticultural
circles, such as Iris growers, it seems just about every clone is a cultivar,
but in CP this isn't the case. (I think this is partly because Iris growers
have fewer wild colour-types to work with, so every new colour is deemed
worthy. Also there is more money in a new cultivar.)
I conclude (have I surpassed long-winded yet?) there must be a way to note
the characteristics of each plant, which is why in my plant list I snub the
rules and have
_S.alata_---red throat
right alongside my more appropriate
_D.binata var. multifida f. extrema_
Now I put to you, Jan old buddy, suppose you were making a plant list
and had a spare of, let's say, _S.psittacina_ that had orange flowers.
You know that several other growers have similar plants, but not all are
clones of each other (perhaps they have different degrees of leaf
fenestrations). How would you list this valuable plant on your list.
Bear in mind that you will ship your list overseas a great deal and so
don't want it to be excessively postage-costly. Also if you just list
your plant (botanically correctly) as _S.psittacina_ you lose an
enormous amount of trading leverage, since your orange-flowered plant
is highly desirable *and* you really want to trade that spare for a
nice and tasty _Utricularia quelchii_. Publishing your plant as a cultivar
may be fine for you, but then what about all the other growers with
their plants---should they publish theirs too? So my question is,
what would your list look like? What is an appropriate solution?
I return to my cave...
Barry
P.S. This reminds me of the situation with the South African genus _Lithops_,
where every clump of the plant in the wild has been catalogued and assigned
a number (or so a cactus/succulent confidante confides). Or perhaps a
multi-dimensional scale could be arranged to classify Sarrs in degrees of
veining, red-colour, etc, so I could call my plants _S.flava_9j45ck4V, etc.
Nah!