What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Looking for fork leafed sundews and planifolia

Hey guys,

I'm looking for mature or nearly mature plants of the following:

D. dichotoma 'T form'
P. planifolia

I have a bunch of sundews and a couple lowland neps to trade. It would be great if someone had a couple or all four plants to trade so I don't have to ship to a bunch of different people. I might also consider seeds of these plants depending on what comes up.

Just drop me a PM.
 
Last edited:
Jeremy,
sorry..I dont have anything to trade..but your post brought up a question I hadnt considered before..

you said "Fork leafed sundews" and then said "D. dichotoma"..
which confused me..because I always thought the "Fork leafed sundews" were varieties of D. binata..

so I googled D. dichotoma.

it looks to me that dichotoma is simply a variety of D. binata..not a seperate species.
however there seems to be a lot of people on the web saying "D. dichotoma" with no mention of "binata"..

should the proper name be "D. binata var. dichotoma", and not simply "D. dichotoma"..which doesnt exist as a seperate species, which would make "D. dichotoma" something that technically doesnt exist? and not a correct name?

or am I wrong? and is D. dichotoma a legit species seperate from D. binata?

confused,
Scot
 
D. dichotoma is a nomen nudum (actually a basionym, thanks NaN) . It doesn't stray far from D. binata, so the correct usage is D. binata var. dichotoma "Giant" and D. binata var. dichotoma "T Form".
 
D. dichotoma is a nomen nudum. It doesn't stray far from D. binata, so the correct usage is D. binata var. dichotoma "Giant" and D. binata var. dichotoma "T Form".

thanks!

(I had to google "nomen nudnum"! ;) never heard that one before..interesting! )

so its just an unfortunate name choice, that "dichotoma" sounds like a scientific "species name"..when it is not..its just a variety name that *sounds* like a species name..and so often gets confused with a species name..

or people choose to use shorthand on purpose..which IMO shouldnt be done,
because it only adds to the confusion..

so anyway, "D. dichotoma" does not exist! ;)
D. binata var. dichotoma 'Giant Type' should be used instead..
thanks! good to know..

here is another thread I just found on the topic:
http://www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2332

Scot
 
Drosera dichotoma is the basionym for Drosera binata var. dichotoma

http://www.omnisterra.com/bot/cp_home.cgi?name=drosera+dichotoma&submit=Submit+Query&search=all
N: [Drosera binata var. dichotoma {(Banks & Soland. ex Sm.) Mazrimas}]
P: Carniv.Pl.Newslett.5:15 (1976)
BN: [Drosera dichotoma {Banks & Soland. ex Sm.}]
S: =[Drosera binata {Labill.}]

N: [Drosera dichotoma {Banks & Soland. ex Sm.}]
P: Rees, Cyclop.:12 (1819)
T: N.S.W., AU, (?BM)
S: =[Drosera binata {Labill.}]


N: ~[Drosera dichotoma var. longifolia {Hort.Bull}]
P: Gard.Chron.2.ser.14:306 (1880)
S: =[Drosera binata {Labill.}]
C: nom.nud.

N: ~[Drosera dichotoma var. rubra {(Hort.Bull) Hort.Bull}]
P: Gard.Chron.2.ser.14:306 (1880)
BN: [Drosera binata {Labill.} var.rubra {Hort.Bull}]
S: =[Drosera binata {Labill.}]
C: nom.nud.

FYI: http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq5015.html
 
That's like S. rubra ssp. jonesii. I've noticed a lot of people simply calling it "S. jonesii," which is incorrect (right? lol).
 
No, once again Sarracenia jonesii is the basionym of Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii.

http://www.omnisterra.com/bot/cp_home.cgi?name=jonesii&submit=Submit+Query&search=accepted

N: +[Sarracenia rubra subsp. jonesii {(Wherry) Wherry}]
P: Castanea 37:146 (1972)
BN: [Sarracenia jonesii {Wherry}]
CLA: ERI-ERI-SAR-SAR-SAR-SAR
L: US (NC., SC.)
LFR: 30:Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain
RLC: LR (cd)

Wherry originally named it S. jonesii in 1929. Bell reassigned it to a form of S. rubra 20 years later.

http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq5528.html
So now, we come to the controversy of the name for this plant. When it was first described in 1929, Wherry called it Sarracenia jonesii (the usage I have adopted). Bell thought that Wherry made a mistake in judgement, and in 1949 he reduced this plant's status to that of a mere form, i.e. Sarracenia rubra f. jonesii. McDaniel, in 1971, felt that none of the Sarracenia rubra-complex plants (including S. jonesii and S. alabamensis) should be given any separate status of any kind, and that S. rubra should just be considered a single polymorphic species. In 1972, Wherry revised his published opinion, establishing the plant as a subspecies, i.e. Sarracenia rubra subsp. jonesii. Workers remain divided on this issue even today, and are roughly in two camps. Case & Case are the iconic leaders of those who prefer using the species designation (S. jonesii), while Don Schnell is the grand poobah of those who prefers the usage S. rubra subsp. jonesii.
 
PM'ed!
 
Back
Top