> (...): D.subtilis. I noticed that you do have it
> on past nomenclatural synopsis of yours, but found it strange that it was
> not in your recent list in CPN. Why is this?
If you mean the key by "your recent list in CPN", _N.subtilis_ *is*
there on p.84 (under 1001011.).
> Another question is on D.spatulata Labill.subsp.tokaiensis Komiya
> & Shibata. Why do you have it on your nomenclatural synopsis as simply
> D.spatulata X D rotundifolia? It has a full set of chromossomes
> from D.rotundifolia as well as from a tetraploid spatulata. Shouldn't it
> be considered a good taxa just like D.anglica?
I don't think so. D.* tokaiensis obviously does not have an
independent existence outside the ranges of both parents. It should
be considered a hybrid (or hybridogenic species of recent origin)
like D.* obovata, and rather different from _D.anglica_ (which is at
least independent from the "other" parent, i.e. non-rotundifolia).
_D.collinsiae_ is a borderline case (missing in the key which
generally does not include hybrids: it is in many cases difficult
enough to keep the species apart!).
Kind regards
Jan