Schloaty (and anyone interested in the species concept),
I swear I answered this question, but it looks like the answer went the way of my wallet......
To answer, (if you haven't died of old age), the terms "species" and "hybrid" are in my opinion mutual terms applied as tools to look at a process spanning millions of years.
It is arguable that many species arose as hybrids involving previously existing species, which over the course of millions of years competed with the other species which colonized the same niche. The hybrids may in fact have out competed the parent population, and radiated widely. Such may be the case with D. dielsiana which may in fact be a hybrid involving D. burkeana (Schlauer: Pers. Comm. 2002). Now D. dielsiana is the third largest species in S. Af. But it may have originally been a hybrid!
This is happening "today" with the comparitively recent formation of the new species D. anglica. In many populations, D. anglica may have outcompeted its ancestors. since it is found where D. linearis is not. Is this a hybrid or a species? Well, that's where personal opinion comes in.
I have been discussing the species concept with Robert Gibson, and he agreed that "species" is not a noun, it is a verb. Any attempts to take a cross section sampling of a million year old process is going to be highly synthetic.
(Members of the ACPS can look forward to a very interesting article by Robert on this subject sometime in the near future. I look forward to that! Don't tell them I told you, lol.)
Finally, my discissions with Robert regarding this particular plant pictured above points the ID in his opinion to D. natalensis. TAAA DAAA! However, I feel the styles are too much in form like D. dielsiana, I feel it in my bones. Robert takes his inspiration from the lamina characteristics, and I am looking at the flower: so who is correct?
I have asked the Great Wise Ones if there was any point to point way of determining what is most important by way of the diagnostic features mentioned in the Keys, and the reply was there is no one single feature more important than another, and all had to be considered, the exceptions being unique features found only within a given species.
I was also cautioned to firmly dismiss the concept of a "type" specimen as ever having any hopes of defining the range of variability expressed within any species. It will not because it cannot, and the accuracy of such a "type" is directly dependent on extensiveness of the field researchers personal experience. It's sort of a doublethink where you must consider the "type" while at the same time keeping in mind that the concept is synthetic from the start.
In the end, it will be realized that these terms reflect only personal opinion, validated by experience and study. No one but you can really answer these questions. Beyond this, you look to someone you trust. For me, that would be Robert, so D. natalenisis it is! ( but my note regarding the styles added for the seriously obsessed few that would give a hoot
I am probably best described as a mystical taxonomist. I have a lot of these details stored in my brain, but in the end, it is something else that leads me to call one or another plant by a species name: its sort of a third eye type of experience.
Hybrids or species there are always surprises for those that care to look into heart of the plants, a sort of personal.....style. The thing is to have an open mind when it comes to species concepts and be willing to reform your own ideas and opinions when new data is presented.