Actually the parenthesis is my preferred method of annotating additional descriptive terms that are otherwise technically invalid as plant names. Even simply separating the correct name from the descriptive terms with a comma would work too, e.g. Drosera binata, dichotoma would be just as acceptable. I am just trying to encourage all of us to be aware of how confusion could cause us all more trouble than we need.
For shame that so many CP nurseries also promulgate this misinformation by generating their own unofficial names, misspellings, and general sloppy naming of their products. Sure, with the general status of things it is hard to hold them entirely responsible for an occasional naming error, but I think all of us should try a little harder to be more careful.
I'm not sure, but I believe that when Peter wrote his book it was still believed that there were varieties and forms of Drosera binata. Subsequently, for various reasons, that nomenclature was determined to be invalid and Drosera binata was reduced to the type, Drosera binata. I have heard that taxonomists have attempted to straighten out the situation with Drosera binata, but it hasn't happened yet.
Of course there are many variations in the Drosera binata "complex", but we horticulturists only have one venue to address this, other than that discussed above. That is to register them as cultivars. In this way at least the names and plants could be preserved and identified more accurately. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/new/smile.gif[/img]