This is wrong: varietal names have to be Latin, and they have to
be VALIDATED by a formal (effectively published) DESCRIPTION
in Latin. A herbarium specimen has to be deposited as the TYPE.
>Slack mentions, in his 2nd book, that a variety of intermedia
>exists in a portion of the U.S.A. which grows to twice the
>size of the standard variety. This would be similar to multifida
>being a variety of D. binata, wouldn't it? The sexual offspring of
>such a variety would carry the same name, wouldn't they?
Please remember, Slack was not a taxonomist or even a botanist!
Irrespective of what he wrote in any of his books, he definitely
*NEVER* described any new species, subspecies, variety, form, or
created any new combination VALIDLY.
>Is "Carolina giant" a variety or a clone name?
"Carolina giant" was NEVER proposed as a cultivar name (this is
what a name of non-Latin derivation could become in the best
case). Thus, please forget this name or publish it as a cultivar
name before you use it!
>How would it be written (D. intermedia var Carolina giant, D.
>intermedia 'Carolina giant', etc.)
The correct spelling is:
"_Drosera_intermedia_", and NOTHING ELSE (at least at present).
If you want to distinguish any different clones (i.e. differing
from "typical" _D.intermedia_), you have to *publish* the names
previous to usage.
Kind regards
Jan