Don't bother reading this unless you have some care or concern about what you have in your collection as concerns it's true ID. *This is a long topic.
Anyone growing material labelled Drosera "Sp. Chapada Diamantina" sold or distributed as a *valid species from Brasil *should be aware that much of this material has been recently determined to be bogus, and most likely a Southern U.S. form of D. capillaris. *Please update your labels accordingly.
The thread of this discussion may be viewed at:
(The discussion begins about 3/4 of the way down on page 1, and continues)
Likewise on the same thread it was determined that material in my collection known as D. aff. roraimae Araca has been assessed as possibly misidentified. *I don't believe I have shared any of this, prior to this revelation, but if I have please remove this name and do not redistribute the plant by this name.
Regarding the D. "Sp. Chapada Diamantina" please do not redistribute this material under its former (and bogus) name, if you have it in your collection via Sundew Matt. *Apparently he plans on not changing the name (see above), so likewise be aware of this, if you are seeking to obtain this plant from this source. *Other sources may or may not have legitimate material from this locality as mentioned in the thread I have provided the link too. * In any case, be alert that any material carrying this name may be incorrectly identified. I suggest you post a photo for Fernando to review while he is still in his skin :-) to determine if your material is authentic within your collection.
This is a perfect examply why I so detest the sharing of "Sp. Anything" material: it only creates additional confusion and dissention further down the line for all concerned. *The rationales that such material may have horticultural merit and should spread despite the lack a positive ID is debateable, especially now that there is a way to define this *sort of merit using the cultivar registration process afforded by the International Congress of Botanical Nomenclature through their registering authority who is Dr. Jan Schlauer, co-editor (along with D. Barry Rice) if the ICPN, and an officer in the ICPS. *If it is worth sharing, it is also worth giving a legitimate name to: one we can all access and agree on.
Registering bogus material PRIOR to distributing or selling it saves a lot of head scratching and hard feelings, and continuing to share and market material that is known to be bogus or incorrectly identified is simply not ethical. *I have been vocal on this subject before: this sort of bogus material needs to be boycotted. *"SP. Anything" is often just a way commercial concerns flesh out their catalogs, offering new and exciting and utterly meaningless material for you to quibble over in later years with growers all over the world! *Stop selling it, and stop spreading it around without registering it! *If you think it's a neat plant, that's great! *I LIKE neat plants, but I also like neat plants to be neatly identified. *I am talking to all you Nurserymen out there, and some of you are my friends even: if you have something with the initials Sp. after the species name, you are subscribing to the promotion of confusion and dissention. *You need to stop this, and register the plants you are selling!
Another source of bogus material are taxonomists and field researchers who make a field collection, assigning a temporary (although still bogus) name while they work out their phylogeny prior to publishing as a new species (or rejecting the material). *This also does no credit to future generations, and such material should likewise be legitimately registered and published as a cultivar BEFORE it ends up in circulation. *The use of names is inherent in our wiring: its how we understand and communicate, but this is partly why the International Congress of Botanical Nomenclature initiated this registration process. *Please stop introducing bogus material into cultivation without pre-registering it! *Even if it is subsequently published as a species, it can still be a cultivar as well without botanical conflict, and referred *to in your species novae publication when and if that occurrs.
Another source of error in ID is continuing to utilize a Species Novae name after the publication has been rejected in review. *This is somewhat more forgiveable since there is still a holotype that may be consulted, and literature available discussing the material. *Names change with review, and effort should be made to keep up with these changes, and when noted, to in turn educate others of these changes when they are unaware of them. *This includes the proper spellings! *It's our responsibility to educate each other: there is no school out there to teach these things to those who have real interest in being a model grower or scientist.
I also address growers who form hybrids, whether natural or non-natural. *PLEASE register a name before you start sending your material willy-nilly into others collections. *If it's good enough to create and share, it is good enough to name! *Please use the tool! *This applies especially to non-natural hybrids. *Most growers HATE a good mystery! *Lately I have been seeing all sorts of South African hybrids, which although lovely, only add more confusion to an already excruciatingly difficult taxonomy. (Ivan, Greg: I hope you're reading this): remember the great words: "With awesome powers come awesome responsibilities......".
We all on occasion have a form unique to horticulture that we might wish to share and spread, but we now have the means to begin making sense of our collections, please, lets use it! *Until we do, there are no Drosera capillaris "Giant", no D. capensis "Thin leaf", no Dionaea muscipula "Pink erect giant cross toothed Joe Greenbottom". *If you want to use the name, then register it, otherwise just drop it and call it by it's legitimate scientific name, and nothing more, and let the new grower decide if it is worth registering!
To adopt any other attitude than this is to do a diservice to both botany and horticulture. *It is not ethical, *I do not approve of it, and neither should you! *We all send out material with names like "all red" or similar color descriptions,(I have too), but be aware that color and form can varry from grower to grower, and keep in mind that these terms are relative. *I view them as "qualifiers" and as such to be treated with a certain skepticism. *Assigning locality names is a different story, since it creates an expectation that the material comes from the location named. *I assure you, without herbarium placement, it does NOT. *(e.g. Don't trust that D. intermedia "Cuba" is from Cuba. *Most likely it is not.) *Its great that we have Fernando around to mail our photos to of the Brasillian "SP. This or That" but where will posterity be when Fernando is pushing up sundews (or is it Pings now?)? *Posterity is going to up up a tepui without a parachute, to paraphrase an old expression!
Every time I see names like D. Sp. "Auyan Tepui", or D. Sp. South Africa #4, or D. SP. "Pretty Rosettes" (No lie!) I wince and cringe. *Names like this are a botanical embarassment, and passing these bogus names on along with the plants is moronic to those seeking to intelligently deal with what they grow. *This may seem a bit harsh to the kid that just got his first Sundew and just grooves on it, but to other more serious growers of scientific inclination there is a different perspective, and here is why: *
Correctly identified collections are more than just a matter of personal pride: they provide valuable data and material to researchers, afford good consensus opinion, and most importantly can give the owner the best sense of how these species interrelate since very few of us will ever be field or herbaruium researchers: and it is percisely this sort of understanding of relationships within the genus that BOGUS material destroys! *Good growers care about these issues very much, and I very much want you all to be good growers. *Help the future by working hard here on your end in the "here and now" to keep things straight.
There is so much variation "out there" in the field within this genus, we just can't romanticize every one of them, and still have a clear head of what makes a species unique, but I can tell you, in many cases it is not their differences, but rather their placement within a commonality.
Ok, that's the end of my lecture on this, for now. *You can bet that I will be mentioning it again and again though. *We can't help but ignore what we are not aware of, but continuing to act ignorant after being informed is just plain stupid and a thing I have little patience for.
Thank you for caring enough to read this, and please remember, you *can* make a difference!