Wait, for correction, my stance is that I *do not* have tuberous
_Drosera_, but rather I have cormous (!) _Drosera_.
>This can be translated as: 'Closer examination discloses the
>bulb to consist of leaves which are grown together to a high
>degree with only their tips projecting freely'
>Is this sufficient to covince you, now?
Well, being a stubborn bastard I will concede, based upon the
documentation of A BUNCH OF DEAD GUYS (come on, you don't expect me
to concede a point gracefully, do you? :) ) that the swollen bodies are
either corms or strongly fused bulbs.
On a horticultural bent, about three more species came out of dormancy
this weekend. I am thrilled to have finally gotten a handle on how to
carry these through dormancy well.
>No, _Genlisea_ has true stems and (quite) true leaves. But
>morphological plasticity is greater than in _Pinguicula_.
>>Does this plant also totally lack true roots?
>Yes. Roots are replaced here by the trap leaves (evidently
>derived from true leaves). Here too, only the flowers prove this
>genus to belong to Lentibulariaceae.
Now why do you say _Genlisea_ "leaves" are true leaves? They look no
more genuine than _Utricularia_ "leaves". Since it seems to me that
_Genlisea_ and _Utricularia_ are quite closely related genera (certainly
closer to each other than either is to _Pinguicula_), drawing parallels
between the two I would think that bladders--> spiral traps, and the leaves
of both are the same.
B