Better hold onto those name tags Aaron, don't assume old Tamlin has a handle on the Drosera dielsiana issue 'cause I DON'T. I think the ICPS was part of the confusion regarding the placement of so many forms like this as D. dielsiana in so many collections worldwide. I know there are good taxonomists associated with the ICPS but the material they distributed was from before the days of Dr. Schlauer, and I think if he found the D. dielsiana circulated by the ICPS had been in error for decades they would just let sleeping dogs lie. But, if it is as I think it's not too difficult a stretch to assume that many commercial growers also redistributed this form in good faith. I certainly trusted the ICPS seed and got plants like yours, with the shorter broad lamina, but this does not conform with Excell and Launders paper published in 1956 or as mentioned in another post, Dr. Gibsons line drawings. Anyways, this would account for why this form has such a wide distribution:
http://www.carnivorousplants.org/seedbank/species/D_dielsiana.htm
Is it an imposter? I believe it is but I am only an egg. You could try contacting Andreas Fleischmann for his opinion, he has a lot of experience with the SAF's, but does not care to discuss taxonomy with the likes of me. Maybe you'll have more success!
---------- Post added at 01:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 AM ----------
Digging deeper into the issue of this perplexing subject, I believe part of the problem with accurate determination is the importance of the flowers in making a determination. You see, the true D. dielsiana is virtually apmoictic (closed flowers) so if someone has a floral photo with an open flower it is already highly suspect! What is needed is for someone with a fairly good candidate to perform a dissection of the closed flower to confirm that the plant has the right stylistic divisions and then for a good photo of the seeds if the styles look right. This would be of great benefit to the CP community.
The seed itself should be ovoid as stated in the protolouge, but I also note Dr. Gibson described the seed as "shortly fusiform" (
!!!). I also read somewhere a statement that what he had once regarded as Drosera dielsiana was incorrect, but don't know if it was before or after his line drawings were published. I The seed testa is described as honeycombed and this is probably a better criteria than the seed shape or size. We must always keep in mind that "type" is a mythological concept that seldom evidences itself in individuals due to genetic variation and/or seasonal/cultural growth in its distribution and this includes seed length .
The issues of flowers and seed must be resolved before anyone will ever know if this species is in cultivation.