>(...) I tend
> to question some of the text however. I say that for a couple
> reasons; 1) D. spatulata is spelled *spathulata* consistently
> throughout the book when that species is referenced. Dave Purks and
> others own a copy of this plant and I have a tendency to trust their
> spelling.
(...)
>As for the spatulata/spathulata question, I've seen both names used
>apparently interchangeably. Is this simply a taxonomical dispute, or
>are they actually separate?
(...)
> Hold on there! I'm just as confused as the next guy. I attribute
> my current spelling of D.spatulata 'rotundata' to Jan's nomenclature
> list. I've seen it spelled both ways in various books and used to
> spell it the other way myself until I found the plant in his list.
(...)
> I tend to favour 'spathulata', but I've seen it both ways - anyone know
>if either is 'more correct'? ( My latin is kinda rusty. )
(...)
> Maybe Jan can shed some light on this?
I could at least try.
_Drosera_spatulata_ (sic!) has been described under this name by Labillardere.
Later, some colleagues considered the spelling "spatulata" to be bad Latin
(not really wrong), and "corrected" it into "spathulata".
Still later, some other colleagues decided that the original spelling used
in the protologue should not be modified if it was not really wrong.
Latin gurus have decided that "spatulata" is a legitimate alternative
spelling besides the more common "spathulata", and thus *not* wrong.
Taking all these facts together, the correct name for Labillardere4s plant
is _Drosera_spatulata_.
Another (opposite) example is _D.burmannii_, originally written "burmanni",
because BURMAN latinized his own name as "Burmannus".
However, even if chosen by the bearer of the name himself, this
latinization *is* wrong. In publications, specimens collected by BURMAN
(the native, and modern spelling) were mostly cited as "BURMANN" (cf. e.g.
PLANCHON, or the genus _Burmannia_), and thus, the correct latinization
must be either "Burmanius" (apparently more appropriate but uncommon) or
"Burmannius" (published and common).
As VAHL has chosen the version with "nn", his species must be called
_Drosera_burmannii_ (I am very sorry that I have to contradict BARRY J.
CONN at this point, whose work on _Drosera_ is the best I have read in
recent times).
Kind regards
Jan