Tropical Fish Enthusiast
A young D. binata leaf is crescent-shaped.
Hmmm, still hard for me to tell but thanks for the larger photo. Could be either Drosera spatulata, D. capillaris, or D. dielsiana, all fairly common hitchikers.
Nomenclature is all about rules. There is an academic institution is Germany that has been keeping track of these rules and names since Linnaeus' time. You have to have a sort of stuffy fussy personality to really even care, but if you do here is the low down, and anyone who sees an error here please pipe up.
The simple rules are a plant is named with a binomial: literally 2 names. The first name is the genus to which the plant is placed, and is always capitalized. The second part is the species name and is never capitalized. the terms var. for varities or ssp. for subspecies are likewise never capitalized. The entire name should be in italics and underlined but conventionally this is overlooked, and the publishing author's name should also appear in brackets - commonly ommited as well. When writing of a particular genus, the first usage should contain the full genus name spelled out (so not Spatulata, rather Drosera spatulata), and subsequent usages may be abbreviated (D. spatulata). Latinizations must be used for all legitimately published protolouge names , must follow the original published spelling even if in error, in perpetuity. That's why Nepenthes spathulata is correct, but Drosera spathulata is not) These Latin names never have quotes. Names change with time as new researchers reevaluate prior publications, but the old names must be conserved as well, forever. To find valid current names go to the ICPS CP database and use the search engine there.
The same institution that regulates the use of scientific names also controls and conserves cultivar names, a recent addition. These names commonly begin with the genus name capitalized, then the cultivar name as published surrounded by single quotes. Only validly published cultivars may use single quotes. Latinizations may NOT be used. For example Drosera 'Tamlinosa' was rejected by Dr. Schlauer who oversees these matters because -osa is a Latin subfix. So it is Drosera 'Tamlin' because of this. Publication is the keynote to validity, and without it other names are called 'bogus' meaning they have no botanical validity. If growers distribute material with other names like Drosera capensis "Pygmy" the double quotes implies this is a made up name. It's still bogus, but because it may be communicative they are still used, but it isn't proper and they are bogus until publication in a non electronic medium at cultivar rank. Common usage does not grant validity, no matter how often used.
Opinions can vary between taxonomists. Currently Dr. Schlauer has the determination of Drosera binata. Last time I checked, there are no subspecies, varieties or cultivars. There is no D. dichotoma, because the author did not demonstrate sufficient differentiation in his protolouge to pass review, so it remains Drosera binata even if it looks totally different from that species. This happens fairly often. So even though it was once legitimately published, and hence the name is valid, the use of the name is obsolete and incorrect until further research may restore it. Another illustration: Drosera venusta coccicaulis is invalid even though it was published because the author failed to meet other criteria in the process, so the name is not valid on that score, and should not be used. It can't be published with that name as a cultivar because the species name is a Latinization, so how do I send it to another grower? Drosera "coccicaulis", and those double quotes should alert anyone it is not botanicaly valid.
Finally, common names are frowned upon as well, like the Purple Pitcher Plant because they are unpublished and often regional. I advocate for their preservation as well, since the names may be communicative, but feel they should always be used in conjunction with the binomial.
That's the lesson in a nutshell, and thanks for the opportunity to present this to all. We all want to appear intelligent and current. Also by convention corrections should be accepted in good grace since ignorance is no sin or crime, and made without fear of being seen as a know-it-all stuffed shirt. We're all responsible for each others education.