> ... but it begs the question: why are these
> names in the DB if they refer to non-carnivorous plants? At
> least Roridula has a historical excuse for inclusion.
The inclusion of the (2) non-carnivorous members of Dioncophyllaceae does
not have any reason beyond taxonomic/nomenclatural completeness (the
sub-carnivorous species of Sarraceniaceae are included as well). No (other)
reason to worry.
Kind regards
Jan