Hello Christian, thanks for stopping by and sharing your very informed ideas with this forum.
OK, I know I told you I've gotten allergic to discussions of taxonomy, but you always get me going!
These examples tell me a few things. It is certainly not related to Drosera cunefolia, but it is a South African plant. I/m not sure how close to D. natalensis it can be - the styles don't demonstrate the repeated bifurcation I expect for that taxa, the lamina are persistent, and the petioles are densely glandular and the floral color is not right. D. natalensis is more light pink from what I have grown (I believe you were the source for what I feel was that species!) It is not Drosera dielsiana, the styles in that species have a simple bifurcation,only dividing once, and floral color closer to magenta than pink. I have grown many examples of D. dielsiana, and have only infrequently found this character in the styles from many different seed sources but I believe it is in cultivation, but not as common as peoples grow lists would suggest. The scape does remind me of D. natalensis however, both in the commonly split scape and in the basal origin of it (as far as I can see in these examples). I have to consider as well that D. natalensis in the SE differs from plants in the SW and the shorter seed from these SE plants strongly suggests introgression with D. dielsiana, making things even more difficult!
So what do we have? Not D. dielsiana, not D. aliciae which also has repeatedly bifurcated styles. Not D. burkeana, the lamina are too round. Not D. cunefolia or D. admirabilis. We can dismiss D. acaulis as a scape is present. We can also dismiss any of the cauline species.
In one photo I can see the underside of the developing lamina, and it seems to demonstrate nerve characters similar to D. trinervia, but that species is commonly white flowered. This may or may not be significant as there are pink flowered individuals in field populations. I would like to see the underside of a mature leaf, there should be 3 nerves visible to support a relationship with D. trinervia. I'm not sure even if all these examples are the same taxa, and would like to know if the scape is central or arising curved from the base? it's not clear to me in the photos. The scape of D. trinervia is glandular (but less so than in these examples), arises from the plants center, has fused styles, . The lamina are a little too spoon shaped, not truncate as I would expect from D. trinervia, but you stated that the petals were often 6-merous and such aberrations often indicate hybridogenic origin. The spoon shaped lamina in the photos here are similat to D. natalensis, at least at their tips/ The stipules of D. trinervia are laciniate, but I can't make them out in these examples. All of the above inclines me towards D. trinervia, but not a "pure" form and that scape also suggests D. natalensis, as does the spoon shaped lamina. I note the floral color while not the lighter pink I associate with D. natalensis is still much lighter than many of the S. Af. taxa. If this has a hybridogenic origin, this might be why.
I won't bet my life on it, but my nearest guess (at present) is D. trinervia x D. natalensis. Not a species, but a process towards speciation.
My additional questions to the growers are:
1) can you detect 3 raised nerves on the underside of the lamina?
2) Is the scape central, or arising from the base?
3) Can you show me a seed photo?
4) Can you describe the shape of the stipules?
Ok Christian my good friend, have at it and shoot down my diagnosis!
---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------
NAN,
I doubt you will ever see this plant described as a species, it published at all it will likely be at the cultivar level. It's not found in habitat, so there can be no type specimen placed. New species are never found in private collections and any attempt to do so would be quickly rejected on review. Latinizations are reserved for publication at the species level, and distribution of material " awaiting publication" with bogus names is not botanically acceptable. These plants are referred to in taxonomy as bogus (meaning not legitimately published), and distribution of bogus material is counterproductive: it generates only dissension and confusion. ANY material worthy of distribution needs to have a reference publication, and publishing at cultivar level before wide distribution makes sense. It doesn't bar publication at a later date at species level.