So is D. venusta 'coccicaulis' recognized as D. coccicaulis or is it a coccicaulis-like form of venusta? Is there a consensus on this?
Neither D. venusta nor D. coccicaulis are recognised species, they should actually be included under D. natalensis. They are however distinct plants and the names have stuck.
As far as I am concerned though, both D. venusta and D. coccicaulis are one and the same.
There have been a few discussions about this in the past. I think the stickied topic about South African Drosera covers it.
D.coccicaulis was never formally published (thus it is not a valid name), but D.venusta was (and thus is a botanically valid name). However, opinions vary whether D.venusta is a good species or if it should be a synonym of D.natalensis.
Thanks for the input, guys. The stickied topic is huge and very interesting. I'm glad you directed me to it--
this topic seems to pop up from time to time . I have already said the following sometime before in different threads.
Drosera coccicaulis is a form of Drosera venusta, that was not collected at the type location (there is no more exact information about its origin). In my opinion, it is best to stick to the (invalid) name, just to make clear it is that special form of Drosera venusta. I usually refer to the plant as Drosera "coccicaulis".
For me, Drosera venusta and Drosera natalensis are two different species, that can be distinguished for example by the shape of the seeds.