South African taxonomy is a very tough call. *I can tell you that Khoas kindly provided me with the seed from which my plants grew a couple of years ago, and it pretty much conforms to what folk call D. "coccicaulis", but keep in mind that this is not a legitimate species. *By this I mean it was not published with a protolouge, nor was material herborized. *I know this by consensus agreement via photographs: all our coccicaulis look much the same although it may be that different events of hybridization gave rise to a similar form.
As complex as taxonomy is, the science of Nomenclature by which plants are named, and those names are preserved is even more fussy. *My focus on proper names is not just a whim - these matters are the central concern if the International Congress of Botanical Nomenclature.
So, although D. "coccicaulis" may be legitimately referred to as D. venusta to which some taxonomists have assigned it, it may not, in any case, *be legitimately called D. coccicaulis. *As far as botany is concerned, at present, D. coccicaulis does not exist. *This is what is called a "bogus" name, and serious taxonomists discourage the use of "bogus" names.
D. venusta is felt by some taxonomists to be somewhat dodgy as well, based on its many similar characteristics to D. natalensis, but it had a valid publication so it is a legitimate name. *It is not bogus, but not all agree that it should have species rank. *Dr. Schlauer is of this opinion, and this is reflected in his most esteemed CP Datatbase.
I personally favor "lumping" all three under D. natalensis, which is highly variable across its range, as per Dr. Schlauer's assessment. *Others disagree, and favor the opinion of Paul Debbert who published this as a species.
But it is a fact that although you may legitimately call it by either the name of D. venusta or D. natalensis, you may not call it D. coccicaulis. *Them's the rules, like it or not, LOL.
Taxonomy is a highly opinionated science, and those opinions are only as good as extensive experience in the field, in literature, and in review of herborized material makes them.
There aren't a lot of highly experienced experts in the genus Drosera, and those that are expert frequently disagree.
For example, although I support the lumping of D. venusta with D. natalensis in Dr. Schlauer's *CP Database, I do not accept that D. auriculata is a subspecies of D. peltata, nor do I regard that D. stelliflora is a subspecies of D. paleacea. *In the latter instances, I favor the opinion of field researchers who have lived with and worked with these species all their long lives. *But in the end, it is a gut level feeling that leads me to my own opinions, based on what I have seen, grown, read about and discussed with those of greater exposure to this genus then I can ever hope to have. *In the end, I decide for myself though, and I occasionally disagree with even the Great Wise Ones, although not too often. *These species speak to the soul of me: not very scientific, but there you go.