I have always been in the impression, that to describe a taxon
nowadays, one must distinctly express the intention to describe.
As far as the Drosera is concerned, I have this nema from
literature, and I was not, until a few seconds ago, aware that
it had never been described as such. Mea Culpa, Mea maxima culpa.
How about correcting this together?
Unfortunately, I will be on the way to Japan and the USA on
wednesday and therefore will have no time until May. However,
if you have a plant available (I have not) maybe you can start
working on it.
The book is now out of print. Although 5000 copies sold in little
over a year, the publisher was not willing to bring a 2nd edition
although the reviews were very positive.
What do you mean by you just have seen the book. Don_t you have
a copy? I may have a few copies left. Let me know.
About the code. I know the problems as I am mainly an orchid
man. I do not know whether you read Taxon but if you do, just
have a look at the proposal to *conserve* Cattleya violacea.
There is another name available. That is Cattleya superba which
is just as much in use in collections as the former one.
More in May.
Regards
Guido