Talk:Drosera peltata

message: As of August 2010 the Australian National Herbarium's Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) considers Drosera auriculata, D. foliosa and D. gracilis to be once again full species on their own right, rather than synonyms or subspecies of  D. peltata. So does the Tasmanian Herbarium's online Flora of Tasmania.
I propose to create separate pages for each of these. The taxonomy of this group is fluid and I am aware of at least one research project working on the matter, so this classification may change yet again in the future. I am dubious that these would be demoted to full synonyms, however, and if they were re-lumped, I expect they would at least retain sub-specific status. MFdeS (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm partial to explaining the synonymy and taxonomic uncertainty here in this article, rather than splitting it. At least until there's a new article that heavily supports splitting them again. It would be good to explain in the taxonomy section that the sources above considered them separate (there's already a sentence about some sources that consider the taxa to be distinct). It's frustrating at times, but I think it's best to wait for scholarly works to be published reinstating the taxa. We can certainly expand this article, though, with more info. Is that ok with you? Rkitko (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not hung up on either approach, though it would be nice to have a clear taxonomy to work with! I don't agree with demoting D. peltata var gracilis / D. gracilis and D. peltata var. foliosa / D. foliosa to simple synonyms, they are quite distinct throughout their range, and especially so here in Tasmania, but unfortunately there are not that many published references to work with. I'm happy to create sections for them within the  D. peltata article, since if they are split properly once more from  D. peltata, there would be potential content already for their respective pages in those sections.  MFdeS (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, go right ahead. The info on synonyms comes from Jan Schlauer's database . And while he is an authority on carnivorous plant taxonomy, he does seem to be more of a lumper than a splitter. And the database seems to lag behind new research. Regardless, if you have reliable sources for the info you want to add, I think it would be a great addition. Maybe then we could bump those other images out of the gallery and in line with the text. I'm sure Allen Lowrie's Carnivorous Plants of Australia has a good bit of discussion on these taxa, but I don't have those volumes. Some of Volume 3 is available at Google Books. By the way, it seems you're very familiar with Drosera taxonomy. I've been slowly filling in new articles via the taxonomy article I created at Taxonomy of Drosera. The system isn't perfect, but it mostly follows Barry Rice's arrangement, which is a modified version of Jan Schlauer's. When you get a moment, I would appreciate your comments. It's great to have someone else working on these articles! Maybe I'll even return from my article-creating hiatus. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have added a bit of info on D. foliosa and D. gracilis. I'm not particularly happy with Jan Schlauer's taxonomy, not least of which because it offers scant references to justify itself, and since he hasn't done original work on these species, his classification is just his opinion, as far as I'm concerned. Not that mine carries any more weight. However, as you point out, given the lack of any conclusive scholarly publications in the area since Marchant's Flora in 1982, we'll have to wait and see what happens. One suggestion would be perhaps to treat the whole group for now as a species complex of uncertain taxonomic delineations, or a superspecies. For example the title of the page could be "The Drosera peltata species complex". I should have some photos of Drosera foliosa and D. gracilis in habitat soon, as they'll be flowering near my home in 2-3 months time. MFdeS (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomic reclassification 

message: The concept of the taxon described in this article has changed significantly since 2010 when most of the content was written. In the coming days or weeks I'll have a crack at reflecting the recent taxonomic changes, but in summary the concept of D. peltata has been significantly narrowed with the description or re-acceptance of various members of the complex as distinct taxa. MFdeS (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomic changes since 2010