> Slacks is right, he was talking only about a particular species of
> D erythrorhiza.
No!
No elitism (Hi, Paul!) intended but may I point out that _Drosera
erythrorhiza_ *is* a species, already, and can therefore not
*include* species. According to the usually applied conventions of
classification, a taxon at a certain rank can formally not be
composed of taxa of the same rank. All included elements must
have lower rank if distinguished from each other.
The concept of "collective species" (note the quotes!) is not an
official one and should be avoided wherever possible. I have dealt
with some "collective" taxa in my key (CPN 25:67-89, 1996), viz.
_Drosera capillaris s.l., D. montana s.l._, and _D. leucoblasta s.l._,
because I think the names which were coined originally for the
respective segregate taxa (or constituents of the aggregates) should
not be changed until a thorough revision is presented (which I was
not able to do in the cases mentioned, l.c.:73). _D. petiolaris_
should be added to the list due to more recent findings by Allen
Lowrie.
However, _D. erythrorhiza_ is at the moment not in a sufficient state
of confusion to warrant "collective species".
Kind regards
Jan