but tou are highlighting the similarities, and similarites in appearence are poor indicators of relationships. Flower structures can be usefull but are not at all a good basis for determening how closely related species are. Tanoaks, for instance, have flowers very similar to chesnuts but diverged from them mlellinia ago.
As for relationships, closeness in looks and growth habit are not anything to pass of as not being very distinct. The fact is it has to be distinct genetically enough to not regularly interbreed with closely related speces. They also
In absance of the complete botonical descriptions, such statements as " But is basically just a plant with longer internodes and shorter leaves that grows taller than B. liniflora" are rather brazen. Its like me comparing red oak to its shrubby releteves. One is basicly taller and with longer internodes but theres no question they are red oaks. however, this does not mean that they are not distinct. your statement
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]They can't be grown in a similar way gigantea or lamellata which grow as perennials and need the cooler period in winter to thrive
Only enhanses the distinctnes softhese species from them.
I am not saying they are not closely related. obviously they are.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I can not say for sure but I believe that until recently all were originally considered different forms so are probably very like that plant.
All these suggest that they are not "very like" thet plant, dispite what they aere originaly classied.
You should not use the original classification as a support to your argument on how similar they are becuae often very distinct species in the past were lumped togeather pending further reserch. Since they are obviously distinct enough to attain species status, it shows that diespide similarities, the original classification was WRONG. Several species of pine were lumped togeather often.
" The some plants" i was refering to was B. rorida
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]new discoveries in Australia brought to light three new species, B. rorida, B. filifolia, and B. aquatica. (Oddly enough, some of my own observations of the plants in cultivation were cited as important evidence that the genus should be split into more than two species!). Even more recently, yet another species (B. lamellata, closely related to B. gigantea) was described--so there are six species in the genus.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I can't see how that could possibly be justifiable as the flowers on each and very much the same, as are the growth habits. There are species of Drosera that I think could be separated from that genus alot sooner than any current members of the Byblis group could- ie- Drosera regia.
I woulrd rather trust someone with as extensive experence in this such as Barry Rice to make this justification than you, who im guessing has never observed the plants closely enough to be able to throw others observations in the improbable pile quickly.
As for the pictures, i am not claiming them to be my own. I tought it was common practice here to post some pics of something that another took, like from the internet. If you take up that issue with me, you should also speak to most of the members here.